Dick Meister: Football breeds violence, Bart breeds cell phone abuse

By Dick Meister

The media are missing some important factors in the coverage of recent football fan violence and the protests over BART shutting off cell phone service to head off protest demonstrations.

Could the violent nature of football itself possibly have something to do with the violent stadium behavior of 49er and Raider fans, at least unconsciously?

You’ve certainly heard the cheerleader chant for players to “hit ’em again, hit ’em again, harder, harder!” That’s what blockers and tacklers do. Theirs is a violent sport surpassed only by boxing, in which the combatants aim to knock their opponents senseless.

Football fans are easily stirred up by the successful violence of their team against the other team’s violence. Once those violent juices are flowing, who knows what might happen off the field, in grandstands, parking lots and anywhere else opposing fans mix?

What kind of a sport is it, anyway, that relies so heavily on violence? Yes, nicely thrown passes, nifty catches, and exciting open field running are important aspects of football. But violence overshadows the non-violent aspects of the game – violence committed mainly by large men who rely heavily on brute strength.

Fan violence erupted again at the pre-season 49er-Raiders game in Candlestick Park Aug. 20. Two fans were shot, another fan beaten unconscious. Twelve fans were arrested and dozens ejected from the stadium.

The 49er management and San Francisco police have planned steps that they hope will head off future fan violence, among them halting preseason 49er-Raiders games, cutting the hours that the Candlestick parking lot is open for tailgating parties that invariably include lots of drinking and rowdy conduct, and assigning more police to Candlestick duty.

Those and other steps might ease the fan violence, but they will not alter the basic nature of football. You may think it a stretch to blame unsanctioned off-field violence at least in part on the on-field violence that is sanctioned. But though there’s no solid evidence that I’m right, neither is there any that shows I’m wrong.

Violence is much less an issue in the BART situation, although those protesting BART’s cell phone shutoff as well as BART police officers use of deadly force have sometimes gotten violent, pushing and shoving passengers as they picket BART stations and otherwise demonstrate their anger over BART in effect limiting free speech.

That’s a good cause, of course. Who but a tyrant would oppose the right of free speech? BART’s no enemy of free speech, no matter what the protestors from the group “Anonymous” vociferously claim. It is true, though, that BART cut off cell phone service in order to keep protestors from contacting each other and bringing more protestors into BART stations.

But as BART says, its main concern is – and must be – the safety and convenience of its riders, who may or may not agree with the protestors who have been in effect trying to force their views on people who are merely trying to get from one place to another in the fastest, safest way.

Many of those BART riders have been kept from doing that by the protestors, who at one point forced BART to close four of its downtown San Francisco stations during the evening rush hour, stranding thousands of commuters who were trying to get home.

However, despite its concern for the convenience of riders, BART fails to note that merely allowing the use of cell phones on its trains greatly inconveniences at least some riders – and I’m one of them.

To me, one of the most disturbing things about riding on BART is having to listen to fellow passengers loudly jabbering away on cell phones, rudely sharing their mundane personal conversations with all of us. The prospect of that alone has made me and probably others think twice before boarding BART.

So, media, how about some words about the cell phone abusers? And BART – shut off the damn phones!