It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: CorvusJackdaw
It is called a hazard of the job. Like saying welders should not get burns....
originally posted by: SKEPTEK
a reply to: intrepid
All of this because a quarterback lost his starting job and decided to pout and sit during the national anthem.
The reason for him choosing to sit beyond pouting was added weeks later.
originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gandalf77
They should be thinking about touchdowns and tackles not politics.
Perhaps the most interesting -- and potentially problematic -- parts of the NFL's new policy governing conduct during the national anthem are the portions that haven't even been written yet. While the league will fine teams that have players who protest on the field during the anthem, each organization is responsible for developing its own workplace rules on how it will handle players who violate the new policy. As owners left the Spring League Meeting on Wednesday afternoon, it was clear there could be vast differences among team policies -- with some owners calling for significant fines for players who protest on the sideline, and some possibly having no workplace rules at all.
That is the big takeaway from this new national anthem policy: In their desire to create a policy that would make clear that the NFL and players respect the flag and keep the league ahead of any future controversies -- especially with midterm elections looming -- the owners left so much gray area that everyone might be susceptible anyway.
One example of a potential issue arose even before the owners were done voting: San Francisco 49ers CEO Jed York, who has been vocal in support of the players' right to protest and who employed Colin Kaepernick, the quarterback who began the protests two years ago, abstained from the vote in large part because he did not feel there was enough player involvement in the process. York stated he will also consider halting concession sales during the national anthem, because, he said, he did not think the team should profit during that period. That, of course, would also force fans -- many of whom don't stand at attention during the Star-Spangled Banner -- to stand for the anthem, too.
According to people familiar with the conversations, Commissioner Roger Goodell has never wanted to order all players to stand, and this policy avoids that. Some owners, including New England Patriots chairman Robert Kraft, said they thought awareness of social justice issues had been raised since then, including among owners, and many of them were mindful of not taking a step back by trying to force all players to stand for the anthem. They arrived at this meeting determined to come up with some policy, fearing that the politically explosive topic could be reignited during campaigns in the midterm election season.
They emerged with an imperfect policy, heavy on the concept of respect but perhaps likely to poke a hornet's nest of opposition, even though only a handful of players among the nearly 2,000 in the league were still protesting by the end of last season. Mark Murphy, president of the Green Bay Packers, said owners spent a considerable amount of time discussing players and how they might react.
"A lot of different constituencies had different points of view," Steelers owner Art Rooney II said. "We really tried to respect everybody's position as much as we could. We spent a lot of time working with our players over the last year. Very few players were kneeling at the end of the season. I'd be surprised if there is an enormous amount of blowback with this."
He might be surprised, at least if immediate social media reaction is an indication. Pockets of fans are upset that players are not being forced to stand. Others are furious that the league is putting any restrictions on players' behavior during the anthem.
In that way, at least, this policy might wind up being an apt reflection of the issue and the league's unwanted spot in this sliver of the national discourse -- driven by emotion and unlikely to make anyone entirely happy.
He might be surprised, at least if immediate social media reaction is an indication.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: network dude
Sports is just entertainment. I don’t know why we even have the national anthem played with U.S. teams. At the Olympics - I get it.
We don’t play the national anthem right before a movie starts at the cinema, or at the opera or ballet. Why do it before a football game?
The NFL and teams must still clarify the answers to looming questions: What, exactly, constitutes respectful behavior? Does a raised fist count as protest? Is it OK if half the team chooses to remain in the locker room during the anthem?
In a wrinkle, the money the league collects from teams in fines may go toward the social justice initiatives that the NFL and a coalition of players have joined together to support.