I’ve been waiting. Waiting for a compelling story that I simply HAD to write about. A story that the Sport Dork Nation would be as captivated by as, let’s say, the impeachment hearings. Wait – bad example. Maybe something more important, like the release of the next new iPhone. And last Thursday night, like an early Christmas present, it landed in my lap.

With a few minutes remaining in the NFL’s Pittsburgh Steelers-Cleveland Browns game, Cleveland’s Myles Garrett tackled Pittsburgh‘s quarterback, Mason Rudolph, as Rudolph threw a short pass on third down. And that’s when all hell broke loose.

Here’s the full video (if it doesn’t come up because the NFL protects its content like it’s a Faberge Egg, click the ‘Watch on YouTube’ link to view):

From what I can tell, as Garrett was taking down Rudolph, Rudolph bear-hugged Garrett on the way to the ground, and then briefly messed with Garrett’s helmet, at which point Garrett decided Rudolph’s behavior was unacceptable, grabbed Rudolph’s face mask and proceeded to rip his helmet completely off of his head, backing away from Rudolph with his helmet in hand while being aided in his departure by a Steelers offensive lineman. Rudolph, meanwhile, realizing that Garrett had absconded with a key element of his uniform, popped up, chased Garrett down and began voicing his displeasure with what had transpired. Garrett, recognizing Rudolph as the face that was only moments earlier inside the helmet he was holding, decided to welcome Rudolph by clobbering him over the head – with his own helmet. Others then rushed in – some to try and calm things down, others to see if they could use the opportunity to beat the shit out of someone – and the proceedings concluded with Garrett and two others being ejected from the contest.

As you can imagine, the headline the next morning was that two guys got in a fight and three people were thrown out of the game. Commentators weighed in with measured responses and reasonable discussions were held regarding the appropriate punishment for those involved. People objectively discussed the merits of the arguments surrounding both Rudolph and Garrett’s actions and engaged in thoughtful, productive discourse.

Are you kidding? What do you think – this is 1985??! This is 2019, baby. Welcome to Outrage Nation!

ESPN and other sports media outlets were barely able to contain their unbridled joy over the previous evening’s events. “The Trial of Myles!” ran at the top of the screen on ESPN’s First Take show while personalities tried to out-outrage one another and feign levels of astonishment that are normally reserved for truly astonishing things – like finding out that Oreos are vegan.

You could almost hear sports TV and radio commentators across the country celebrating an incident that they could squeeze at least two days of programming out of, salivating as they prepared to dazzle us with their hot takes and describe, in vivid detail, all the ways Myles Garret had violated every norm of human decency and had probably placed the future of our republic in jeopardy with his actions. Based on the commentary I saw, the only reasonable punishment for Garrett was life-long suspension from the NFL – after public castration, of course – and to ban any of his current or future offspring from playing in the NFL.

The esteemed thought leaders gracing our airwaves even went so far as to discuss what legal options Rudolph may have available to him and whether Garrett should be prosecuted for his actions. Terms like assault and battery were bandied about, and speculation around Rudolph filing charges only intensified when his agent said “I’m not taking anything off the table.” Anything except for the use of common sense, apparently.

How did we get here? How does one guy hitting another guy with a helmet on a football field morph into an injustice as heinous as the Manson murders that’s worthy of the same level of discussion previously reserved for world affairs? How is it possible that, as a country, we have gone this completely insane?

That’s a question for someone much smarter than The Sport Dork. But I can tell you this much: this is what happens in the age of social media, when any idiot with a computer and a stray thought can tweet, post and start a blog. (Hmmm, sounds like someone I know.) Traditional media outlets are fighting over eyeballs and eardrums with more competition than ever before. And they are so desperate for ratings that they have to stay relevant. And the only way to stay relevant is to generate and maintain news by a) giving it a false sense of importance and b) talking about it incessantly. The goal is to make EVERYTHING ‘breaking news’ or ‘must see’ and assign a level of urgency and importance to it that it does not fundamentally possess, and then line up a cast of characters to give us frenzied, over the top ‘hot takes’ and debate each other for hours the way you would if you were settling a critically important issue – like who has the best chicken sandwich. Disagreement and debate are the currency, and agreement – even agreeing to disagree – the enemy, to viewership.  They keep doing this over and over, and eventually we all end up thinking that what happened on a football field between two NFL players is a life or death debate and find ourselves screaming at each other about Myles Garrett and the fate of the universe.

But the outrage over an incident on a football field is about even more than the media making it a bigger deal than it is and giving it plenty of legs. It’s also what happens when everything in our lives – from sports to politics to culture – is presented to us as an either/or choice. We have entered an era of absolutism that leaves no room for compromise, where the only acceptable position on any issue is either swift and complete condemnation or unwavering support, both typically occurring before there’s been enough time to fully digest the event in question and most certainly before all of the relevant facts have come to light. You’re either for or against, and you better figure out which team you’re on fast, because both sides are going to battle, and they don’t have time to waste with you and your gray areas. This absolutism has seeped into every aspect of our lives, to the point where we immediately have to pick ‘sides’, even when there are no sides. We’re no longer allowed to look at an event – say, one guy clocking another guy over the head with his helmet during a football game – without being told we are either ‘for’ Mason Rudolph and ‘against’ Myles Garrett or ‘for’ Myles Garrett and ‘against’ Mason Rudolph. And of course, Garrett pummeled Rudolph with his own helmet. On national television! You can’t possibly be ‘for’ Myles Garrett, so you must be ‘against’ Myles Garrett! And if you’re ‘against’ Myles Garrett, you’re clearly ‘for’ Mason Rudolph. And how do you show that you’re ‘against’ Myles Garrett? You support a swift and decisive penalty! One that could leave no doubt to any observer that you’re anti-Myles Garrett, because anything less than the harshest of penalties could leave someone to question whether you miiiiiight just possibly condone his behavior. Plus, what if someone else proposes a penalty harsher than the one you proposed? Doesn’t that mean that they’re MORE anti-Garrett than you are? And doesn’t that just prove that maybe you do condone his behavior just a little bit? You can’t take that chance – you’ve got to make sure you leave no doubt as to your stance on a guy hitting another guy in the head with his helmet. The death penalty!!

But what if – brace yourself for this possibility – there’s more to the story? What if you’re someone who’s totally against one dude hitting another dude with his helmet and think it merits punishment, but you keep seeing that image in your head of Rudolph initially grabbing at Garrett’s helmet while being tackled? And what if you watch the replay a bunch of times and realize that it looks a hell of a lot like Rudolph is making some lame attempt to remove Garrett’s helmet, and when Garrett registers what’s going on, or at least what he believes is going on, he loses his shit at the idea that a second year QB with absolutely no NFL street cred or reservoir of goodwill would try to screw with his helmet, so he immediately grabs Rudolph’s helmet and rips it off to give him a taste of his own medicine? And what if, while Garrett is holding Rudolph’s helmet after he has backed away from the area, he suddenly sees Rudolph, the guy he’s pretty sure was just trying to pull his helmet off, charging at him like some kind of maniac, and he’s so astonished that this little QB weasel would charge at him, a veteran NFL linebacker, that he decides to clobber him with his own helmet?

And what if you take a step further back, and consider that the NFL, in its zeal to protect its most valuable asset, star quarterbacks, has outlawed just about every type of contact with a quarterback short of gently laying them on the ground and reading them a bedtime story, effectively emasculating defensive linemen across the league and leaving them, well, fairly pissed off? Is it possible that when you create a flag football league where defensive linemen are flagged for breathing on a quarterback, if a quarterback who is protected as well as the president of the U.S. starts screwing with a defensive lineman’s helmet after being taken to the ground, the defensive lineman might take exception to it and proceed to pummel said QB with his own helmet?

None of these things actually change the fact that Garrett beating Rudolph over the head with his own helmet is wrong, can’t be tolerated, and should be punished. But to paint Garrett as some kind of monster who lost his mind and committed unprovoked assault and battery on Rudolph and should be subject to the most draconian penalties available shows a complete lack of appreciation – or worse yet, a willful disregard – for the context within which his act occurred. Rudolph is not without fault. We’ve become really good at ignoring the instigating action of a chain of events and obsessing over the severity of the reaction/retribution. But the fact remains that none of the subsequent events occur if Rudolph doesn’t screw with Garrett’s helmet. And guess what? Saying that doesn’t equate to condoning Garrett’s actions. They are not mutually exclusive, as much as the media would like to convince us they are in every situation like this that pops up every single day. It IS possible to believe that Rudolph instigated the chain of events with his helmet jostling and assign him some accountability, and also believe that Garrett completely overreacted and should be punished, but also may not be the devil.

But don’t tell the NFL that. Armed with all of the same video evidence that’s at The Sport Dork’s disposal, and probably quite a bit more, the geniuses in the league office suspended Garrett indefinitely and didn’t suspend Rudolph a single game. They are apparently contemplating a fine. I guess the NFL got the memo – nobody cares who starts it, as long as the retaliation is swiftly and excessively punished. Our trusty media was quick to accurately assess the situation with measured and responsible headlines:

If you ignore the complete and utter lack of equity in the NFL’s decision, it’s actually genius. Their only objective is to quiet the outrage mob, and none of them were talking about Rudolph, so a suspension would only bring their ire and open the league up to claims that by suspending Rudolph they were implicitly condoning Garrett’s actions. The indefinite suspension of Garrett was equally brilliant. By making it ‘indefinite’ and refusing to put a number on it, the NFL protects itself from outrage over claims that the suspension is either too short or too long. There’s nothing for the outrage mob to latch onto, effectively neutralizing them, and by the time Garrett’s reinstated, they’ll be busy pouring all of their energy into another story with a fresh set of hot takes.

Speaking of hot takes, #FreeMylesGarrett!!!! Who’s with me??!!!