Did Steelers-Bengals bloodbath cross the line for NFL? |

Did Steelers-Bengals bloodbath cross the line for NFL?

Matt Rosenberg
Christopher Horner | Tribune-Review
Steelers receiver JuJu Smith-Schuster taunts the Bengals' Vontaze Burfict after a big hit during the fourth quarter Monday, Dec. 4, 2017, at Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati.
Christopher Horner | Tribune-Review
Steelers linebacker Ryan Shazier is carted from the field after being injured during the first quarter against the Bengals Monday, Dec. 4, 2017, at Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati.
Christopher Horner | Tribune-Review
Bengals quarterback Andy Dalton talks with Steelers linebacker Ryan Shazier as he is carted from the field after being injured during the first quarter Monday, Dec. 4, 2017, at Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati.

It was the quintessential train wreck that we, apparently, couldn’t look away from.

The bad blood leading into it. The war of words. The jarring tackles. The bone-crunching blocks.

It was “AFC North football,” Ben Roethlisberger said after the Steelers edged the Bengals , 23-20, on Monday night in Cincinnati.

But it left many wondering whether this was football at all. And if it was, is it time to question everything we think about it?

Steelers linebacker Ryan Shazier and Bengals linebacker Vontaze Burfict each left the field on backboards — Shazier after an attempted tackle in which he jammed his head, injuring his back, and Burfict after a blindside block from Steelers receiver JuJu Smith-Schuster.

Yet in the midst of their physical pain and agony, not to mention the all-too-apparent mental blow it dealt the players on that field Monday night, we tuned in. Tribune-Review columnist Tim Benz — and a slew of others across the national media landscape — are questioning why. It’s become clear that nothing can be done to change violence in football .

“If they are the ones who are putting each others health in danger playing the game, the fans and media shouldn’t be held to a higher standard just watching it,” Benz writes.

This was among the NFL’s worst nightmares: A game that, by nature of the teams involved, was going to garner a large audience anyway became one of the more a brutal, violent games the league has seen. And it was seen in primetime by a captive national audience.

“You can throw reason out the window regarding what has become of Steelers-Bengals,” The Sporting News’ Vinnie Iyer writes . “At a time when the NFL needs to reduce dirty hits and headhunting for the sake of its perceived sputtering, harder-to-watch product, those teams continue to stand in defiance, which created an even worse look in one of the league’s prime-time television showcases.”

The NFL is now tasked with trying to salvage a tarnished image stemming from the events at Paul Brown Stadium.

“The point will not be to water down the game or take away someone’s manhood or earn credit by clutching pearls,” ESPN’s Kevin Seifert writes . “It will be to preserve the vast majority of a game that many people love, at the expense of a level of savagery from which we can all stand to evolve.”

Sports Illustrated challenged us — the viewers — in response to the violence.

As we watch blow after blow, guys’ heads bouncing off one another, Shazier in a panic without movement in his lower half , Burfict laid out on the field, we nonetheless keep our TVs on. SI’s Connor Orr wonders when enough is enough.

“Shazier should have scared the hell out of every person watching on Monday,” Orr writes. “He should have made us wince with every boneheaded helmet-to-helmet hit that followed — and there were plenty. He should have forced us to ask an important question: How do we stop this from feeling normal?”

Maybe we’ll find out … when we all tune in again next week.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.