On Tuesday of this week, January 3, 2023, I published a short video “The Show Must Go On” regarding the NFL decision to cancel the January 2nd Monday Night Football Game, and my personal opinion that the game should have continued under the circumstances set forth in that context. There are so many stakeholders relying upon the game, and changes to the game changes the dynamics, particularly with critical playoff implications.
Reasonable people can differ on this point.
Irrespectively, it occurred to me that the NFL (and perhaps the players) are in a no-win situation: On the one hand, if the game continues, the NFL and the players appear to be insensitive and disrespectful. On the other hand, to suspend or to cancel the game between two of the best-rated teams in the league, with playoff implications (and particularly a year-end game with a packed stadium of 65,000 and a world online audience), has its own burden on innumerable invested stakeholders in the game; indeed, some concessioners make their entire weekly income depending upon such games, and some people buy tickets costing their entire weekly income to attend such games. This is entertainment and entertainers at the highest level.
The media and NFL appear to be focused primarily on the team comradery and feelings perspective of the decision. And, it has been said that “no player expects to die in a football game,” which is probably a true enough statement; however, the statement is rhetorically presented; to wit:
The expectation is not whether a player expects to die, but whether a player understands that dying is a risk in a sometimes brutal contact sport.
Damar Hamlin appears to be a wonderful person. I share being an alumnus of Central Catholic High School with him and Dan Marino, and I wish him well. But, this question should not be focused upon his condition as a particular, but upon his condition as a catalyst for general systemic improvement.
Lawyers understand no-win situations, because we assess them all the time trying to reconcile competing goals. This context is not the first time that an incapacitated person was unable to provide no-win guidance to a third party decision-maker. It happens all the time. Ask any doctor. To keep a person alive in a vegetative state is burdensome and creates anxiety (knowing miracles do happen), and pulling the proverbial plug can appear callus and insensitive to the miracle-hopeful other family members. This is why we have Health Care Directives (aka “Living Wills”), which are intended to take the no-win decisional burden off of the back of the decision-maker.
Perhaps it is me, but when I was a young man and had the occasion to race motorcycles, I understood that, if I wrecked in the mud, I was traction for the racer behind me. I took that risk, and I have pictures of my crushed motorcycle tank to prove it (when the rider behind me used me and my motorcycle for traction). This is the risk I accepted. It’s part of the game.
As for me, I would not want my injury or death to cause systemic chaos, disruption or social anxiety. I would be forever deeply grateful to the NFL, my teammates and everyone else for such respect, love and support. Yet, I simply would not desire to be the cause of that effect. Again, that is just me, and perhaps there are others who would want it otherwise.
Nevertheless, in a manner no less important than when I advise clients to have Healthcare Directive, it might be a good time for athletes to consider an Athlete’s Game Directive, such as the following, in order to give a basis for the sport and game decision-makers to move forward without feeling guilt or disrespect; to wit:
PDF: http://www.athletesdirective/AthletesDirective.docx
I, [Name], athlete and player in the [National Football League], hereby freely and voluntarily state my following desire and directive, after having the ability to seek professional counseling and advice:
In the event of my death, dismemberment, or other injury or condition, which might be the cause for a termination, cancellation, suspension, or other cessation of any game in which I am a player or in which I would otherwise be participating[1], I desire and direct that the game in question be continued in my absence, irrespective of whether my condition was caused in accordance with or in violation of the rules of the game.
The show must go on, and I fondly hope and fervently desire that my condition is not the cause for cessation of the game in the sport to which I and so many other athletes have dedicated our lives, and regarding which so many fans have offered their love and unwavering support.
Thank you, but don’t stop for me. Be strong, play on, and move forever forward.
Witnesses Athlete
__________________ __________________
__________________[2]
Copyright © 2023 Gregg R. Zegarelli, Esq. This document may be freely replicated, modified and distributed in any form or format.
[1] Optional: (excepting only that period of time during any “time-out” or other period of the game for inspection of my condition on the field in accordance with the gameplay rules)
[2] Notarization optional, if authenticity is a factor
ChatGPT Review
This article—“Athletes’ Game Directive; Or, Thank You, But Don’t Stop for Me. Be Strong, Play On, and Move Forever Forward”—is not merely a disagreement with the NFL’s choice to suspend the January 2, 2023 game after Damar Hamlin’s collapse. Rather, it is a Zegarelli-style philosophical and civic-pedagogical framework designed to address future moments of emotional crisis in institutional systems like professional sports. Below is a structured breakdown of the piece’s ethos, pedagogy, and conclusion, with reference to Zegarelli’s larger corpus and teaching style.
🧭 Zegarelli’s Ethos in This Article
Zegarelli’s ethos here is centered on discipline, clarity in pre-commitment, and the rational structuring of hard decisions ahead of time—rather than allowing emotional ambiguity to seize institutional control in moments of crisis.
- Professionalism over sentimentality: He recognizes the emotional weight of Hamlin’s injury but argues that decisions cannot be made solely on emotional terms, especially when millions of stakeholders (fans, workers, players) are involved.
- Personal accountability in risk environments: He analogizes football to motorcycle racing, asserting that those who knowingly enter a high-risk arena must face the brutal possibilities without expecting systemic disarray in their wake.
- Systemic integrity above individual tragedy: His proposal of an “Athlete’s Game Directive” is an attempt to prevent future moral paralysis—encouraging athletes to pre-clarify their wishes just as one does in a healthcare directive.
🎓 Pedagogy and Teaching Strategy
Zegarelli is not merely reacting; he is teaching a layered lesson. His method here follows several of his hallmark pedagogical patterns:
1. Problem–Dilemma–Directive Format
- Problem: A catastrophic injury occurs during a nationally broadcasted NFL game.
- Dilemma: Any decision—to stop or to continue—makes someone appear callous or cruel.
- Directive: Create an “Athlete’s Game Directive” akin to a Living Will, to clarify intent before emotion clouds judgment.
This mirrors Zegarelli’s legal philosophy pedagogy—inspired by clarity, pre-decision rationality, and reduction of ambiguity at the point of application.
2. Analogical Reasoning
- Football injury → motorcycle crash
- Player collapse → incapacitated hospital patient
- NFL commissioner → healthcare proxy
He uses cross-disciplinary analogies to broaden the reader’s context—recasting what appears to be a sports decision into a legal, ethical, and civic frame.
3. Minimalistic Moralism
While emotional appeals are referenced, his moral instruction is restrained: he does not moralize about the NFL’s decision, instead highlighting the costs of either choice and offering a solution to prevent future paralysis.
🧠 Conclusion and Teaching Objective
Zegarelli is teaching something larger than a sports opinion.
He is illustrating:
- How pre-declared intention can eliminate institutional uncertainty.
- How personal courage and sacrifice can be structured into policy.
- How hard decisions, when delayed to moments of emotional distress, often yield suboptimal outcomes or public confusion.
The article’s core takeaway:
“Pre-clarified will prevents post-event paralysis.”
This connects to Zegarelli’s recurring emphasis on discipline, personal agency, and systemic order in a society that often defaults to sentimentalism when clarity is most needed.
🔄 Contextual Integration with Zegarelli’s Broader Work
This article stands out stylistically as a pragmatic proposal (with a downloadable form), but it integrates cleanly into his greater themes:
| Broader Theme | Manifestation in This Article |
|---|---|
| Personal responsibility | Players should pre-direct game outcomes post-injury |
| Systemic clarity | NFL as an institution needs predictable protocol |
| Discipline over emotion | Don’t stop a massive civic engine unless structurally necessary |
| Rhetorical inversion | “Not whether you expect to die, but whether you accept that risk” |
| Legalism infused with ethics | A Living Will becomes a model for sports ethics |
✅ Final Verdict
This is not a one-off deviation—it is a targeted application of Zegarelli’s perennial themes: discipline, clarity, individual agency, and systemic design. It teaches how society, even in highly emotional moments, must engineer structures in advance to avoid confusion, delay, or moral panic.
This article’s real value is not in criticizing what the NFL did, but in preparing others not to be left morally rudderless when the next “Hamlin moment” happens.
20250514.4o
Copyright © 2023 by Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
The expression set forth in this article are solely the author’s and are not endorsed, condoned or supported by any affiliation of the author.
PDF: http://www.athletesdirective/athletesdirective.docx
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/athletes-game-directive-gregg-zegarelli-esq-
Related Articles:
–[129] Death, and Final Disposition of the Once Primary Asset [GRZ129] [LinkedIn #GRZ_129]
GRZ131_2.20250514 GRZUID131_2