comment: >
  
  That's a really good point.
context: /u/kingpatzer (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I don't think it's worth any discipline or anything. But it was stupid of Skip.
  When I worked in news and there was a tragedy, we had editorial meetings to discuss this type of stuff. These are Day 2 stories. 
  You don't write these stories yet, because everyone is focused on the tragedy itself. You KNOW a portion of the public will view these as distracting from what's important and deem them callous. It's entirely predictable.
  This was obvious, which is why the rest of the media didn't focus on it. It's not like Skip was the only media person who wondered this. It wasn't some huge insight. It wasn't the focus yet, because the media is smart enough to understand you wait until the next day with this stuff. Hell, back in the studio they just hemmed and hawed because they didn't know what to talk about because they knew it couldn't be about the game. 
  And Skip is smart enough too. He knew that, and that's why he ended it with an obligatory "but of course that's not important," which made it even more dumb. If it wasn't important, why tweet it? If it is important, why tack on the bullshit?
  The fact is, his desire to say something different than the other media personalities won out over his knowledge that it wasn't the right time to talk about that. He stepped into it eyes wide open. >
  
  
  These are Day 2 stories.
  
  !Delta for the idea that there's a cultural norm to be followed and in breaking it he upset people. >
  
  I'm noting that your responses here are along the lines of "I see why other people would find this distasteful". However, it doesn't seem like YOU find this distasteful, right?
  Sure, everything he said in his tweet was accurate, but the whole point here, and what people take issue with, is the fact that he is choosing to talk about the game. Even though he ended by saying "this all seems irrelevant now" or whatever, that does not change the fact that the full content of his tweet IS a discussion of the football ramifications of a man nearly dying on the field during a game. He has a platform, an audience, a space in which he can fill it with whatever he wants, and he filled that space with some football-related analysis rather than focusing entirely on the well-being of the person who just had a heart attack and nearly died.
  And why does it matter? Because people listen to what those with a platform have to say and are influenced by it, sometimes significantly. In an era where Donald Trump actually became the president of the United States and continues to have a following, despite the fact that everything he says is completely bonkers, completely disproves any counter-argument you might make that the public is able to filter out the dumb crazy people and ignore what they say. That simply isn't the world we live in. Skip chose to overlook the health of the player and instead focus on the game, which sends the message that player health is secondary to the game, since he discussed the game and not the player in that tweet. On some level, conscious or unconscious, that's going to send a message that the game is more important than the health of the player if we make the game our center of attention rather than the player's health. >
  
  
  On some level, conscious or unconscious, that's going to send a message that the game is more important than the health of the player if we make the game our center of attention rather than the player's health.
  
  Why does this not apply every single time a player is taken off the field in a stretcher (and we continue on with the game and our discussion of it)? Why do we continue to watch the sport when countless players suffer from CTE afterwards? Is this not effectively a central tenet of football? >
  
  
  Why does this not apply every single time a player is taken off the field in a stretcher (and we continue on with the game and our discussion of it)?
  
  It does. If a player got hauled off on a stretcher, and someone tweeted "player X hauled off on a stretcher. That's sure gonna hurt the team's chances at securing a playoff spot!", I promise you, that person would be excoriated for saying that. 
  
  Why do we continue to watch the sport when countless players suffer from CTE afterwards?
  
  Because the league did a lot in response to the CTE crisis. It sucks that this was going on and that it took the discovery of CTE to make changes in the NFL, but a lot has been done in the name of player safety, and the NFL admits they dropped the ball on this. The league made improvements to equipment, created more stringent concussion protocols... They haven't been perfect, but there HAS been a response to it. I think you were going for the "those who live in glass houses" angle, but if nothing had been done in response to the CTE crisis, I think pretty much all of the players and the fans who aren't completely bonkers would have revolted. >
  
  
  If a player got hauled off on a stretcher, and someone tweeted “player X hauled off on a stretcher. That’s sure gonna hurt the team’s chances at securing a playoff spot!”, I promise you, that person would be excoriated for saying that.
  
  Sure, but the game doesn't stop, the commentators will continue their coverage, and millions of fans will go on with their day. The opposing team's fans won't be judged for cheering if they win at the end of the day (though yes, they may rightfully be judged for cheering at the injury itself)
  
  They haven't been perfect, but there HAS been a response to it
  
  That's fine but it doesn't really change my point, which is that players' health routinely takes a backseat to the game, this is just a question of degree. Let's be honest, if player health was the overriding priority, football wouldn't exist as a sport >
  
  
  Sure, but the game doesn't stop, the commentators will continue their coverage, and millions of fans will go on with their day. The opposing team's fans won't be judged for cheering if they win at the end of the day (though yes, they may rightfully be judged for cheering at the injury itself)
  
  Right, because we verified that they will be okay. They will live. A torn ACL is not life-threatening. Any time a player goes down, there is concern, and everything stops until we understand the concern and whether that player will pull through. And when a player is completely unconscious on the field, that pause and that lack of concern about resuming play continues. 
  Monday night was an instance of a player hurt so severely that even after he was driven away from the field, we STILL didn't have that information, and thus the concern spilled over to the extent that the whole game had to be canceled. That seems to line up exactly with how we typically handle these things and is entirely consistent. 
  
  That's fine but it doesn't really change my point, which is that players' health routinely takes a backseat to the game, this is just a question of degree. Let's be honest, if player health was the overriding priority, football wouldn't exist as a sport
  
  We draw the line when a person's life is threatened. That feels appropriate to me. Football players signed up knowing they might get beat up and deal with injury, but if they knew there was a chance that they could DIE, they won't. And indeed a lot of people have quit football because of it. But that said, it is the expectation that anything life-threatening is completely unacceptable, and every action taken by the league reflects that. >
  
  Sure, though I think we've moved the goalposts here from "player's health" to "player's life", which is not the same thing and not what was being discussed at the beginning of this thread. I don't actually watch football myself, so I can't provide any of my own insight, but based on what you said that sounds like reasonably consistent handling. In fact, I'll give you a !delta >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/malachai926 (30∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I personally had no issue with Skip's tweet, but it's about reading the room.
  Dozens of other people were commenting on the situation and going out of their way to not mention or discuss the game outcome but rather focus purely on Hamlin and sending throughts/prayers instead.
  Once I observed that happening it was obvious that the first person to start talking about the impact on game/standings that person was going to be vilified for not being respectful enough of Hamlin and the situation. 
  And if that person happens to be Skip Bayless, who makes his living by being hated... of course it would play out exactly as it did.
  Everything about it was predictable and obvious. If I had a social media audience, there is no way I would have said anything about the game/standings until at least the next day. Not because I couldn't handle the topic being discussed, but because I could read the room. >
  
  !Delta for the idea that any discussion away from Hamlin was going to be ridiculed because of social pressure regardless of if it was actually insensitive or not. I think that is an accurate perspective. >
  
  Yeah I agree with you that it was manufactured or feigned outrage.. I can't think of the other word/phrase for trying to show off your moral superiority online...
  But from skip's perspective that should have been predictable. >
  
  Why do you say it is manufactured? Is it? You really don't think people found Skip's tweet offensive or angering giving the situation? >
  
  I think you're right technically, but it's what Skip always does. It's just an asshole tweet with really bad timing. Like, let things settle, and let the NFL and NFLPA breathe and try to figure out some options before you come off as the callous one. 
  Because also, his tweet is impractical because the players would refuse to do it. Or what, you want to have players actively crying on the field while they play? The overwhelming response from the football culture was to stop the game. If as a commentator who already has a reputation for being cantankerous and over the top is the only one saying what you're saying, you're lacking tact. >
  
  Right but you can also wait, you don't need to be the first one. If you give it a day, the conversation will naturally arise because everyone's thinking about it. But they also want to give time to see if the dust settles a bit. >
  
  If he gave it a day, it wouldn't have been a timely observation. >
  
  I get what you mean because generally I think people go way too hard on celebrities. People literally saying “we need to cancel skip immediately” and then people will be on here saying “cancel culture isn’t real”.  It’s goofy. 
  With that being said I personally do think the tweet was a little insensitive though. What was skip trying to actually say by bringing up the games and what the nfl is going to do? Then saying it’s all so irrelevant? If it’s irrelevant then why are you mentioning it ?  It just leaves so much room for misinterpretation and when someone’s in a life or death situation you probably should proofread your tweet a little bit before putting it out there for everyone to see. And if he wasn’t aware until after, about how bad the injury was, then he shouldn’t of been tweeting until doing his research on what actually happened. That’s his whole job. He knows the times we live in where things can be taken the wrong way. 
  But no I don’t think he’s REQUIRED to apologize or explain but yet he already did. So why are we even debating whether he needed to or not. He chose to on his own. >
  
  
  What was skip trying to actually say by bringing up the games and what the nfl is going to do?
  
  The NFL had an immediate decision to make about whether to abandon the game or play on, however irrelevant such a decision may have seemed at the time, or indeed seem now, it still had to be made. So commentating about that and the relevant factors, sensitively and after previous remarks about the even more immediate concern of the medical emergency, seems appropriate to me.
  
  Then saying it’s all so irrelevant? If it’s irrelevant then why are you mentioning it ?
  
  He didn't say it was irrelevant, he said it seems irrelevant. The difference is subtle and I obviously don't know if it's a distinction Bayless intended, but my interpretation (as I hinted above) is that he was acknowledging that there was an immediate decision to be made even though it seems like it should be irrelevant. >
  
  Yes people die all the time but context matters. How it happened and the idea a young person can have their life taken away, although logical, in this context is shocking. 
  I’m this case it was personal to millions of people. How many people have died on live tv?  Not many 
  Humans have an ego protecting protocol to place things we try to ignore in a far away bucket. Sports by their nature are where humans go to escape hardship. Be it work or divorce or politics or death. 
  In this case millions of people had their ego protected illusion of escape shattered by a person nearly dying. 
  In effect his accident forced reality back on us in a way we strongly object to. >
  
  I agree with you nearly completely with one minor detail: People, especially performers, are responsible for how there words are interpreted. This is his job and livelihood.
  I don't see how anything he said is worthy of the hate he got, I think he was correct and making an artistic choice in delivery. The problem is that his choice obscured his message. >
  
  
  People, especially performers, are responsible for how there words are interpreted
  
  I don't think that people in general are responsible for how a listener interprets their word choice. I do think that if they want to be effective communicators and the listener asks for clarification, they have a responsibility to provide it. That's sort of the "contract" of being a good-faith interlocutor.   
  But if someone hears a statement and jumps to a conclusion not fully supported by what was literally said, that is not the speaker's fault or responsibility.   
  However, I think your point about performers is exciting and worth exploring. I think you're spot on when talking bout someone "on screen" where the audience has no ability to ask for clarification. But does that extend to mediums like Twitter that are more interactive? I'm not sure. I could see arguments both ways. >
  
  As a professional communicator, that is in fact his actual responsibility. He’s trained in written and oral communication skills so that he can communicate a message to an audience the most effective way possible for a given purpose. Failing to do so doesn’t make him a bad person, but it does make him bad at his job. >
  
  His job is literally to piss people off though, which he’s elite at, this tweet being yet another example of his professional prowess. >
  
  If anything that makes it worse. Not only is he trained as a traditional sports journalist, but he has perfected the art of trolling and knows exactly how to intentionally piss people off—which means he can’t play ignorant as to how and why people would receive his tweet so negatively. >
  
  Yeah it’s definitely worse, I’m just saying he’s good at his job, which again, is to piss people off. >
  
  Many have it correct here - it was the order and overall explanation he gave that seems his priority was the game instead of the player. Whether or not it was his intention, being a massive sports personality comes with the territory of revising what you say. >
  
  Thanks - you know what you should do for changed views :) >
  
  
  /u/DeltaBot replies with an award confirmation if the delta-comment meets the following requirements: 
  The delta is not in response to OP (could be taken as incentive to soapbox). >
  
  Ah, didn't know that >
  
  People like to feel holier than thou, so they get righteously upset as opposed to just being rational. >
  
  I love all the people who want to call me an asshole for not suddenly acting like nothing else matters and we can’t even discuss questions like how the schedule will work out now… when I’ve been beating the drum for years that football is unsafe and people shouldn’t be playing, and at the very least the government shouldn’t facilitate minors playing it with public schools.      
  Suddenly now that are obsessed with player health and I am supposed to the the asshole… until a week or two from now when they will have moved on and I’ll still be talking about how unsafe football is. >
  
  Except he is explicitly not focusing on that. 
  " . . . which suddenly seems so irrelevant."   
  The topic of his tweet is explicit: all those football considerations don't matter. >
  
  His job is to comment on the game, noting the considerations that people were dealing with in choosing to postpone/cancel the game isn't ignoring that Hamlin was hurt. And in noting that those considerations don't matter is saying a human being potentially dying is way more important than all this.
  I would get if he said, "let's ignore what happened to Hamlin, we really need to talk about why this game can't be postponed." Hell, I'd be first in line to crucify him. But he didn't say that. He said the opposite of that.
  And in context, it's clear that he was doing his job by communicating what he perceived to be the issues the NFL was addressing at that moment while noting that those considerations should be immaterial.
  Further, he was right - the NFL was having conversations with the Player's Union about those exact considerations at that very point in time. >
  
  The rest of the media disagreed, which is why it wasn't the focus of the ensuing coverage until the next day. 
  Skip didn't discover the issue. It was obvious. Everyone else knew better than to say it yet. >
  
  So what?  Everyone knew of the issue and thought it themselves, why is he the scapegoat for just saying what everyone else was thinking? >
  
  Are you sure he was laying on the field as he tweeted that? >
  
  He wasn't. That other guy is being hyperbolic to bolster his weak point. Skip is a one of those tv talking heads who react on twitter to games in real time. It's essentially color commentary via twitter. Hamlin was down on the field for approx 16 mins( it felt like a lifetime watching it live but Google says 16 mins lol). While the paramedics were on the field administering cpr, skip tweeted this: "Not exactly sure what happened to Damar Hamlin. Players on both teams are shaken. Ambulance out on the field. CPR administered. Can't remember play being stopped for this length of time. Just said a prayer for him and his family." According to twitter, the tweet was sent at 9:11 pm. 
  Later, at 9:24, he commented on the players saying: "I've seen so many horrific injuries suffered on football fields yet never have I seen a reaction like this. In every other situation I witnessed or covered, the game always went on fairly quickly. The attitude was, "Hey, that's football." For these players, this was DIFFERENT."
  6 mins later at 9:30, when Hamlin was off the field at this point, and it became clear that the game was not going to be resumed, Skip tweeted the tweet that has everyone upset. So we have a tv personality live tweeting the game giving you his thoughts in the moment. He addressed the seriousness of the injury and expressed his condolences to Hamlin and his family immediately after Hamlin went down. Then he addressed the players because the broadcast basically hit a standstill and they were constantly showing the faces of distraught players. Then when we started to get more info, mainly that the game would be postponed, Skip gave his thoughts on that. People keep judging this tweet with no context. This shit is one big nothing burger.... >
  
  If you say something that unintentionally hurts people's feelings, and they're people you care about, you apologize.
  An apology is a way of expressing regret and sympathy, not a confession of guilt. It doesn't cost you anything to say your sorry, especially if you actually feel sorry. >
  
  I would suggest that interpersonal communication inside the context of a relationship with someone you care about is not the context of a tweet :)
  And in such situations, I personally still tend not to apologize. Rather, I'll go for reframing what was said to help with understanding.  I don't believe I'm responsible for other people's emotional states, particularly if such states are caused by failing to consider the information in front of them.  If I honestly can not see how what I said is offensive, then I don't apologize for it. *shrug*.
  Maybe I'm weird but my incorrect understanding of what someone was trying to say isn't a reason for me to get upset. It's a reason for me to slow down and ensure I comprehend correctly. So I don't think it's a reason for others to either.
  Now, if I ask follow-up questions, and come to believe I do understand what is being said correctly and it's still offensive, then I absolutely can and do get upset, and would want an apology. But my first step is to ensure I know what was actually communicated, not to jump right to the end and assume my understanding is infallible. >
  
  
  I would suggest that interpersonal communication inside the context of a relationship with someone you care about is not the context of a tweet :)
  
  I didn't say it was? Do you think a broadcaster shouldn't care about his audience? I should hope he does since he wouldn't have a job without them.
  It sounds like you are generally resistant to apologizing in day to day life. I'm not sure there's a way to change your view on that other than to just try being more free with apologies and see how it goes. In my experience, learning how to say "sorry" when I inadvertently hurt/offend/mislead people has greatly improved my personal and professional life. >
  
  
  It sounds like you are generally resistant to apologizing in day to day life.
  
  Not at all, I apologize for my mistakes all the time. I'm a senior manager and one of the things I get a great deal of praise from my teams is that I take responsibility for my mistakes and genuinely make up for any impact I have on them should I make an error.   
  I try to be clear about what I am responsible for and what I'm not. I'm not responsible for other people's emotions. >
  
  
  I'm not responsible for other people's emotions. 
  
  Does that mean you don't apologize when you say something that accidentally hurts someone's feelings? >
  
  That depends on my relationship with the person and the entire context of what was said, but generally no, I don't. Now of course, when my kids were little I would apologize to them if I accidentally hurt their feelings, as children are not fully emotionally mature people yet. 
  But for my spouse, I expect the same level of emotional maturity out of her as she does of me. If she's upset with something I said we'll have a conversation about what I meant. There wouldn't be a demand that I apologize to appease feelings that would never have been hurt in the first place if someone had asked a clarifying question. There would not be a discussion to establish guilt. Instead, there'd be a conversation focused on how to ensure a lack of future misunderstandings. >
  
  Ok. I think we fundamentally agree. I don't think Skip Bayless was required to apologize. But I understand why he chose to anyway, and I think it was a prudent decision. >
  
  I can see your perspective on this issue. It's true that Bayless' tweet was factually accurate and didn't show disrespect towards Hamlin or his family. However, it's also important to consider the context in which the tweet was made and the potential impact it could have on others.
  In the moment, Bayless was commenting on a serious medical emergency involving a player on the field. It's understandable that some people might find it inappropriate to immediately shift the focus to the potential impact on the game and playoffs, especially given the uncertainty and gravity of the situation at the time.
  Furthermore, it's possible that Bayless' tweet could have been perceived as callous or lacking in empathy towards Hamlin and his family, especially if it was read out of context. It's important to remember that words and actions can have unintended consequences, and it's always a good idea to consider the potential impact of our words on others.
  In summary, while Bayless' tweet may not have required an apology or explanation, it's understandable why some people might have taken issue with it. It's important to always be mindful of the context in which we speak and the potential impact of our words on others. >
  
  So for starters, I largely agree with you in that there is nothing wrong with Skip’s initial tweet and it’s not the terrible statement that people were trying to portray it as. He should not be crucified just because some people chose to imbue the worst possible meaning into their interpretation of that tweet.
  That being said, there are still two issues with it:
  1) While the true meaning of the tweet is the opposite of malicious, the way that it was worded/structured left some room for confusion. Again, while it’s not Skip’s fault that people comprehended the tweet wrong, it could have been reworded to be a clearer message that placed more emphasis on the irrelevance of everything else.
  2) Even in context, Skip’s tweet, while not heartless, felt insensitive on some level because even mentioning things like playoff importance just seemed like poor timing, even if it was ultimately for the purpose of calling it irrelevant at the end of the tweet. It’s something that just didn’t need to be mentioned.
  With those two criticisms in mind, my biggest problem with Skip isn’t the initial tweet itself as I think he was in the right. The problem is the doubling down and refusing to acknowledge the potential harm in how people were receiving it. He can defend his actions while simultaneously deleting the tweet and clarifying his intentions. Dying on this hill, even when he’s technically right, is ironically creating a bigger distraction from Hamlin’s life—the very thing he says the nfl season is irrelevant compared to. >
  
  Even when I take into context the other tweets, and hear other people try to rationalize this tweet, I still have to disagree for a couple of reasons.
  One, the way it was phrased reflects a passive voice when it comes to the concern about Hamlin's injury in this specific tweet, the "but how?" is far too ambiguous in wording to be clear in the terms of "how would it be scheduled", and the "pause" still reads like an afterthought. If anything, it reads more like "Well, I've expressed the necessary grief, now to worry about the game" to me. Just because you can't see it as being interpreted any other way doesn't mean it can't be. Also, at the time, it wasn't clear that the NFL was "clearly" planning on postponing. Players were seen warming up and ESPN reported on air that the teams had been given 5 minutes to warm up prior to the teams being pulled by their coaches. Major Twitter trends were calling for the NFL to call the game. When you add the atmosphere on Twitter at the moment of Skip's tweet into it, the above interpretation seems more and more plausible, and Skip doesn't really have a clean track record when it comes to being respectful in his opinions - see the rather personal shot(s) he took at Shannon Sharpe when Sharpe dared to say Tom Brady wasn't having a great season this year.
  Two is what happened on his show today with Shannon. Shannon skipped yesterday because he didn't want to get into it, and when he came back today he started off by trying to clear the air and talk about what happened and why he wasn't on the show. Skip immediately jumps in and interrupts him and starts trying to talk over him. Shannon eventually finishes what he was going to say (after berating Skip for interrupting him) and Skip doubles down repeatedly, saying that "Well nobody here had a problem with it" in addition to saying that he was "trying to put himself in the mindset of the NFL execs" in a different video. It was sloppily worded, it had bad optics, and Skip knows it. >
  
  I agree with you. That being said, this is how the masses work when you’re spitting out takes during times of high emotion. 
  His tweet would have been interpreted COMPLETELY differently if he removes two words: “but how?” Those two words give readers the implication that he doesn’t want the game postponed. 
  Reread: “No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game. This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome … which suddenly seems so irrelevant.” >
  
  You need to be a professional tweet proof reader. That really makes a big difference >
  
  If I say something and a not insignificant portion of my audience comes away with the wrong understanding of what I intended to say, it seems reasonable to apologize "if I was misunderstood" and to clear up the misunderstanding. Particularly if I'm a public figure whose job could be on the line if this misunderstanding isn't cleared up. >
  
  It may be reasonable to clarify the meaning, though even there if what's being said is simple and straightforward I don't necessarily agree. But if someone gets upset and becomes rude because they are ignoring the plain meaning of what is said and is rather overtly ignoring what was said, that is not a reason to apologize. >
  
  
  But if someone gets upset and becomes rude because they are ignoring the plain meaning of what is said and is rather overtly ignoring what was said, that is not a reason to apologize.
  
  In my view it's a great reason to apologize because it acts to diffuse the situation, which is a preferable outcome, particularly when people are calling for you to lose your job. >
  
  The issue is that he expressed concern over the game in such a way as to increase its relative importance (and thus decrease the relative importance of a life-threatening issue), by the way he ordered the phrasing.
  Had he said something like the following -  in this order - no one would complain
  
  Hamlin is priority #1. Everything else is irrelevant 
  NFL has/will postpone the game
  We'll figure out when to reschedule it later. >
  
  He kinda did with the previous 2 tweets. First one literally said that he prayed for Hamlin. 
  I consider those tweets as part of a series. And the outrage is pulling a sentence out of a paragraph. >
  
  If there's more context that may change things.  However, the tweet posted her is the only one I know of >
  
  
  Not exactly sure what happened to Damar Hamlin. Players on both teams are shaken. Ambulance out on the field. CPR administered. Can't remember play being stopped for this length of time. Just said a prayer for him and his family.
  
  13 min later
  
  I've seen so many horrific injuries suffered on football fields yet never have I seen a reaction like this. In every other situation I witnessed or covered, the game always went on fairly quickly. The attitude was, "Hey, that's football." For these players, this was DIFFERENT.
  
  6 minutes later 
  
  No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant. >
  
  Well I think you need to evaluate the critism levied against the tweet. 
  
  Former NFL player Jacob Hester told Bayless to "read the room, and have a heart." Vikings cornerback Patrick Peterson, former NFL player Darelle Revis and NBA analyst Kendrick Perkins, among many others, also criticized Bayless.
  
  If you say something insensitive to the room, do you need to apologize? It's up to the person who said it. 
  Personally, I don't think it needed an apology either but that's for skip to decide right? >
  
  The most liked response to his tweet isn't "read the room," but is "You're a sick individual" Quickly followed by "I hope they fire you" and "all you care about is football when Damar Hamlin's life is at risk."
  Further, how is the tweet insensitive to the room? Seriously, I see nothing insensitive in that tweet at all. Not one thing. >
  
  I mean this isn’t exactly peoples first impression of him, his entire persona is being an asshole and making ridiculous hot takes >
  
  Yeah, I never said I like the guy. I just think that in this case, people are reacting to their impression of him rather than what he actually said. >
  
  Did you watch the game? He was dying on the field at the time, and Skip decides to tweet about the impact delaying the game will have. Maybe, Skip could have tweeted something similar today, but when he is dying on the field? 
  Also, most people understand what he meant by the tweet. Yeah, he said that it is irrelevant. It is so irrelevant that it shouldn’t be mentioned. How would you feel if someone talked about your moms inheritance while she is having a heart attack? 
  At the end of the day, no focus should have been put on the impact of delaying the game while the guy is dying. End of story. >
  
  While I don’t think there was anything wrong with Skip’s tweet, he made a mistake of opening the door for controversy (unless it was intentional for controversy of course which is a real possibility) and as a talking head he should have the most scrutiny since his job is literal to put out his thoughts to be judged. 
  However I think there was a very large demand for outrage over this incident with little actual supply. I think when a lot of players and just moral people in general see this happen they have an image in their mind of people who are saying “play on”. In this case I don’t think that really existed at all but Skip opened the door and people took out their frustration on him. >
  
  Horse pucky. It was not appropriate to even discuss the NFL at a time when a man is fighting for his life. The entire subject should have been his health and welfare and not the impact of n to playing the game at another time. Something is wrong with us when we cannot sense when something said and when is said and whether or not saying it is appropriate. It is not the truth that matters it is the compassion and empathy required at the time in which he wrote it. This is really not hard. >
  
  Countless lives are ruined by playing football every. single. year.
  What made this player's suffering more serious than every other players'? >
  
  He nearly died in front of over a million people. That is what usually makes a difference when something is bought to the full attention of the public. Seems to be the only way to make changes is for us all to suffer at the same time. 
  Further, at what level of football would the game have been continued? Been around this sport my ENTIRE life and at every level and have never witnessed a near death on the field and the game to continue. >
  
  Ah, so the major difference for you is the acute nature of the suffering.
  The gradual destruction of bodies and especially brains is an acceptable amount of suffering so long as it's after the players are retired and it doesn't happen during a game/one doesn't have to actually come to grips with the fact that this sport is inherently dangerous and has been leaving a trail of bodies for quite some time now. >
  
  As a football (soccer) fan, i get where he came from. This thing happened a lot of times in the sport, it isn't a surprise for me anymore when it happens in another. Game continues and the person in the incident survived, even went back to play in another season.
  However, my problem is him demanding to get the game resumed when most people agree that cancelling it is a better way to go, because they want to give more attention to the incident rather than anything else
  For me, it's better for Skip to just keep the tweet for himself this time. Not because what's right, but to keep things less complicated than what it already is
  ​
  In short, READ THE MF ROOM >
  
  People misunderstood the tweet. Clarify, apologize for the misunderstanding, and delete the tweet. Instead he is refusing to delete the tweet which all I can really amount to is stubbornness. Is the tweet really the important thing right now? >
  
  This is a pretty standard turn of events for Twitter, right? >
  
  Not a Skip fan, but I agree. This incident is unprecedented but not by much. On a recent episode of Bomani Jones’ podcast, Domonique Foxworth listed incidents which were a “play on” in his career. These included people being helicoptered off the field in practice, concussions, all manner of injury, and a player dying after a preseason game. I think the injury began to manifest on-field but not as serious as Hamlin’s.
  At least two people were paralyzed on the field in the early 1990s and those games weren’t stopped. Of course guys regain feeling hours after those hits most times.
  I think if this happened pre-Covid they’d have played through it. Myself I don’t have argument with the players one way or the other on the decision to play on. >
  
  also screws with fantasy football, which is a high part of the nfl >
  
  It's people reaching, over reacting, twisting words...happens all the time...someone says something and it's interpretation is twisted... >
  
  there’s no twisting words😂he worded it how he wanted too because that’s what he meant… skip isn’t 13, he knows how to communicate. He said clear as day “but how?”, that paired with “which suddenly seems irrelevant”. He’s clearly not talking about why the game should be postponed like he’s trying to backpedal and claim >
  
  Ofc it didn’t. The only problem with that tweet was it highlighted just how ignorant and illiterate the vast majority of people on Twitter have become. Skip might be a loud dumbass most of the time, but in this situation he was spot on. And if you still don’t get it people just look at it from the antithesis of his argument. If you are in disagreement with him then you have either of two arguments; 1) there are no major implications on the game nor the rest of the nfl teams and there would be small and few further reaching problems created. Or 2) the kids life doesn’t matter. Or I suppose a third which is both. 1 is just objectively false and two makes you a pile of garbage, so again either people reading this have no reading comp skills, they just want to hate on him, or they’re horrible people to start with. So no, obviously it didn’t need an apology. >
  
  -but how?. He didn't say "but why?" The question remains. How are they gonna do it? >
  
  Bayless is paid to be an A hole.  Christ I wish I had his job.
  But after a tragedy big enough to postpone a game, you have to wait at least a week to talk about things like season continuation or you get backlash.
  Bayless is paid to deal with backlash. Him being a prick like that is why he is hired..
  But it's a classic case of too soon. >
  
  . >
  
  My question to those who thought it was insensitive is when exactly would it be ok for someone to raise this question that was already on the minds of many? What time would be ideal for you to look at this arrangement of words and punctuation without you clutching your pearls? >
  
  This seems like concern trolling >
  
  If he had put his last sentence first, he may have avoided the backlash. It was almost like people chose not to read the whole tweet, or they have the reading comprehension skills of a 3rd grader.
  It was very clear that he was saying "this game has huge playoff implications, yet none of that matters in the face of this tragedy"
  I guess the response to that could be, "No shit, Sherlock." But I don't see how it would require an apology. >
  
  At the moment he fell, not one player on that field cared about the precious season. Not one single player wanted to continue. They are not animals working for our entertainment.
  I don't see how he could not have known what was happening without paying attention. In which case, why is he tweeting about something he has yet to inform himself about?
  The tweet was classless and foolish. Skip should have known better. That's why people are upset. >
  
  
  I don't see how he could not have known what was happening without paying attention. In which case, why is he tweeting about something he has yet to inform himself about?
  
  Nothing really indicates he said all of this at the exact moment the player fell. There was a series of tweets all at different times which suggest he was just live-tweeting his thoughts as the situation unfolded.
  
  The tweet was classless and foolish. Skip should have known better. That's why people are upset.
  
  Not exactly classless or foolish. If you actually break the tweet down it makes sense. But often on twitter people don't do that an kneejerk reactions happen. A lot of context is required to understand what he might be thinking.
  One concept I think is getting forgotten is the nature of the NFL itself. Fans players, everyone knows a the end of the day "it's a business". So my perspective on his question was just open ended to provoke thought and focus on the entity that is "The NFL" not the game itself. How will the NFL go forward on this issue? From the perspective of the NFL this game was huge, had many implications beyond the two teams involved. Two playoff teams on a monday night, primetime tv so it was a big $$ draw for the NFL as well. It's never stopped for concussions, complete ankle breaks, leg breaks and other gruesome injuries. A league often seen as dehumanizing to the players.
  So back to the issue now here we are at an incident so different from previous ones we're used to, how does the NFL move forward? We've got an unencountered player safety issue and the league that takes criticism for player safety every single week. Will it take a human approach and postpone the game? Think about how they would go forward with that. The seasons over in two weeks, they can't really just squeeze in a game on short notice before the playoffs start, and there's obvious other logistical difficulties. On the other hand do they just continue the game with the players in the mental state they're in? The message that will send to the rest of the league while they face criticism of player safety among other things.
  So yeah that's the long version of how i interpreted the question he proposed. >
  
  I agree with the OP.  The outrage at Bayless over his tweet is ridiculous and smacks of virtue signaling by those calling for his job. >
  
  STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS BUNGHOLE AND MAYBE HE'LL GO AWAY! >
  
  Whom? >
  
  He needs to apologize for being distasteful. A life or death emergency was unfolding. The only focus should have been on the football players well- being and his family. Bringing up another topic around that situation shows a lack of empathy. He chose to tweet something that took the focus off of the unfolding life and death situation. Football should have been an afterthought. Everyone was in shock and waiting for an update as to his situation. That is why he should apologize. >
  
  Just want to say I 100% agree with op on this one. I thought I was losing my mind when the initial reaction to the tweet was so unanimously negative and I could not comprehend what Skip said was disrespectful to Hamlin. 
  In my view, I believe what happened was an issue of timing. People were in the midst of an immensely emotional situation, and the tweet was an avenue for feelings to be directed towards. A lot of this I believe is partly due to Skip’s reputation for being a contrarian. >
  
  I guess an apt example would be if you just found out at work a coworker has died. And your boss goes I’m sorry to hear that. Okay now we have to figure out who’s covering her work. Technically he’s correct you guys do, but everyone would be understandably pissed. >
  
  ELI5: aren’t serious injuries fairly common in pro football? Why is this such a big deal? >
  
  It isn't. But everyone is acting like it is because most Americans are afraid of death. >
  
  The guy isn’t dead though!
  Most everyone is afraid of death, their own at least, but postponing this game isn’t going to save anyone. >
  
  You only do CPR on dead people. Death isn't always as permanent as people assume. We really don't know when a person dies. But a field standard for combat medics (which I was) is "if they aren't breathing on their own, move on to someone who is"
  I get we have other standards like "brain death" for trauma centers who can monitor such things. But when teaching CPR, it is actually important to let people know that if someone isn't breathing, they are dead. If you do CPR on a dead person for 20 minutes and they still stay dead, you've done nothing wrong. And it isn't wrong - if a person isn't able to continue for the next moment without external help, they are dead. If we can help them and do help them, and they pull through,, that's great. But both of those things aren't always true. And ultimately, we have to realize we can't keep dead people alive all the time. >
  
  A simple "Prayers for Demar Hamlin" or "Praying for Hamlin🙏🏾" would've sufficed. Sometimes it's best to read the room and if you can't do that just stay quiet. >
  
  He did say that in the tweet prior. As I outlined in my original post. >
  
  That's my point. He should've just left it at that. No other comments were needed especially that soon. The game should be the last thing on anyone's mind considering the man is clinging on to life. >
  
  But it wasn't the last thing on everyone's mind. Plenty of people were thinking the same thing he tweeted: that it doesn't appear the game can go on, but this is week 17, so what will happen?
  Having that thought doesn't preclude being concerned for Hamlin. Adult humans can compartmentalize. >
  
  I agree, I don't think he said anything wrong. He could have, however, chosen his words more carefully. Especially since he is Skip Bayless. People seem to find reasons to hate on the dude, I personally think he can be fun to listen to (though not always). Anyway, IMO, He was addressing an elephant in the room (that the NFL had a huge dilemma, with playoff implications,  to get figured out). But he should have made clear that it was tomorrow's elephant to be addressed, rather than leaving his words open to interpretation that he think the game should be immediately resumed. I think his intentions were for the former, not the latter. >
  
  So many people here responding that he should have read the room or been more situationally aware. Maybe I’m cynical, but I don’t think those people really understand Skip Bayless.
  I think Skip Bayless tweeted that because he knew that it would be controversial and that he would be reprimanded, but that he is actually right and said only true things. Maybe the backlash was worse than he thought but it feels like people here aren’t catching that this man makes a living off of being “controversial.” >
  
  Tweet tweet chirp chirp. Y'all are suckas. >
  
  When taken literally,  I agree with you. That said,  the last part of being irrelevant seemed akin to a backhanded compliment to me. JMO (Obviously not a compliment,  but the add on after the fact) like he read kt, realized it was insensitive, but still wanted to post it, so added in the last bit. >
  
  Everyone gets offended on someone else's behalf these day >
  
  The feeling of the players on the field when something happens that major is completely different after such an insistent. I’ve finished a basketball game after what appeared to be a devastating injury for a player and let me tell you it’s really a dream state. Everything seems so minuscule and pointless, going through the motions while pondering life. It’s a wild head space to be in. I can’t imagine it being on a professional level, not from a play or anything just someone dropping, just like that. 
  Seems like there should be a way to get it sorted out one way or another. I don’t give two shits about whoever this talking head is. >
  
  Yes he was correct, but some things are more important and take precedence >
  
  if the healthcare workers who saved him are expected to work another case immediately why should football players not continue the game? meanwhile they're making millions a year vs the $20 an hour the healthcare workers are making