David Seidemann: Tackle football rules in Gaza

From the other side of the bench

By David Seidemann

Issue of Jan. 9, 2009 / 13 teves 5769

Excuse me if I’m whispering. I just snuck into an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council. On the table for discussion is a resolution by the 0-16 Detroit Lions, a member of the National Football League. Said resolution calls for the condemnation and boycott of the Minnesota Vikings, for the Vikings’ use of disproportionate force in their 12-10 victory over Detroit on Sunday Oct. 12, 2008.

I confess to being a bit surprised, as the rules of the game are clear. The team with the ball, the offense, lines up opposite the defense, which is charged with the responsibility of protecting its goal line. The defense does not need to allow the offense to penetrate their territory at all. The defense is not required to allow the other team’s offense to march all the way down to their goal line before mounting a defense.

Nor are their any rules that prohibit one team’s defense from being mightier, stronger, faster, quicker and more punishing than the other team’s offense. Similarly, there is no rule that would have required Minnesota to wait until Detroit scored before a) mounting a defense or b) scoring with their own offense team first.

Nor is there a rule that states that if Detroit scores three points, Minnesota can likewise only score three points. That actually would be “point-less.” You see, it is understood that if Detroit suits up, takes the field, receives the ball as a result of the initial kick-off and begins their first play from scrimmage, that Minnesota can repel Detroit’s advance without any limitations on personnel or talent.

But here is one of the more interesting rules; as soon as Detroit snaps the ball on their side of the field and initiates a run or pass intended to have an effect on Minnesota’s side of the field, the Minnesota defense is allowed to send all 11 of its players to tackle the one Detroit player with the ball.

Why is that, you ask? Because proportionality relates to objective and not to method. If Detroit’s objective is to score at all costs, Minnesota may defend at all costs.

Why is that, you ask? Because it sometimes takes more than one defensive player to stop the progress of one offensive player.

Why is that, you ask? Because the other 10 offensive players for Detroit are blocking for, and providing cover for the one with the intent to score.

The rules of the game go so far as to state that not only can Minnesota score when they have the ball on offense, but they can score when Detroit is on the offensive and even when Detroit is on their own side of the field. It’s called a safety, and its worth two points.

That, my friends, is exactly how the Minnesota Vikings beat the Detroit Lions on Oct. 12, 2008 by the final score of 12-10.

The Detroit Lions had the ball first and 10, on their own one yard line, with 31 seconds remaining in the first quarter. Their quarterback threw two incomplete passes and then called a time out. Faced with third and 10, the quarterback took the snap from center and back-pedaled six steps.

Before he could lob the bomb, four Minnesota Vikings defensive players tackled Detroit’s quarterback, Stan Orlovsky, in his own end-zone. Minnesota was awarded two points and went on to win the game by a two-point margin.

If Orlovsky was exiting his vehicle and entering his stadium hours before game time and was then tackled by five 300 pound linemen, I guess the argument of disproportionate force would carry some weight.

But once he strapped on his helmet and evidenced his intention to throw a bomb on Minnesota’s side of the field, the argument of proportionality fails. No team is required to conduct their game plan in a tit for tat manner, absorbing any blow that cumulatively could cripple them later.

Three years ago, Israel withdrew from Gaza, gave it over to Fatah, which in short order lost it to Hamas. Concurrently with destroying homes and lives in Israel, Hamas has done absolutely nothing to improve the lives of the people they control. They are more intent on destroying others than in building themselves. Nor have they managed to unite with more, so called moderates, like Fatah.

Instead they have continued, in their self destructive manner, to terrorize Israel, scurrying to the United Nations for cover and protection whenever Israel finally responds.

For their part, the United Nations has once again displayed its utter irrelevancy, hypocrisy, and bigotry. They are silent when innocent Israelis suffer and awaken from their self-induced slumber only to condemn Israel’s supposed disproportional response, as if such a notion existed in warfare.

Perhaps they need to watch a little more football.

David Seidemann is a partner with the law firm of Seidemann & Mermelstein. He can be reached at (718) 692-1013 and at ds@lawofficesm.com.