New NFL Policy. Re: The National Anthem.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: CorvusJackdaw

It is called a hazard of the job. Like saying welders should not get burns....

I see, your stance is that because something is a hazard of that job then no steps should be taken to reduce the risk of those jobs.

Understood.

EDIT: I am going to consider the dialogue between us to be over and will no longer be replying to your comments on this subject.

Take care.

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.

I see "they can protest on their own time" from many that would rather not see any protest from these people. Do they have "their own time"?

Smoke a hoolie on their time. -Suspended.
Hit your woman. Suspended
Taking performance enhancing drugs- Suspended
Any violation of the code of ethics- Suspended.

I counter that their off time is the same as game day.

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.

Yup but it took on a life of it's own.

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.

That is the actual reason cap is still out of a job.
Funny how almost no one noticed the first time he sat.

a reply to: projectvxn

So they are assholes because they are expressing a silent protest which is their right as Americans? The right that you served in the armed forces to protect? You of all people being a veteran should be indifferent to this type of thing. Why would you take the lick the combat boots attitude when it comes to expressing freedom of thought and freedom to protest. You must really get upset when you see the pictures and videos of the black men throwing up the black power fist at the Olympics.

Would you get as upset if a Cuban refused to stand for the Cuban national anthem over the injustices that occur over there, would they be an asshole too?

A new article today on nfl.com entitled "NFL's national anthem policy leaves room for more controversy."

www.nfl.com...

I can't read the black on white text. Having a bad cataract day.

a reply to: matafuchs

Seems to me they can and should be thinking about anything they want. Hard to suggest they aren’t thinking about touchdowns and playing the game they love, though.

People act like they’re so put out by seeing this. Goodness, it’s during the national anthem. How long does that take?
It’s not like anyone’s forcing us to watch a march on Washington or something. If it’s so offensive, avert your gaze or go grab a beer.

These protests haven’t sullied my enjoyment of the game in the slightest.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gandalf77

They should be thinking about touchdowns and tackles not politics.

Actually Trump should be concentrating on politics, and not letting a personal vendetta against the NFL cause him to interfere in a business he doesn't care for. The players are not getting in involved in politics - why would you think that? They are protesting very specifically racial injustice by law enforcement. They are not protesting the national anthem, nor soldiers serving their country.

Trump is the one who turned it political for his own personal gain. And not-very-smart people believed him.

Personally I think the players should find another venue to try and make a stand - and I think the NFL has the right, as basically the employer of those players, to dictate what they can and cannot do. But I think it is blown WAAY out of proportion, fans did not care much at all, really.. about the kneeling (I forget it as soon as kickoff occurs), and Trump is the one who made it a "thing." And for him, it was 100% a vendetta against the NFL for snubbing him (and being awarded 1.00 for his "win" in court).

a reply to: conspiracy nut

1 the NFL isnt the US government. I don't care what they do with their players. Of the US government was telling them not to protest then I would agree with you. Otherwise, yes they are preachy rich assholes.

I'm not upset and quite frankly your accusations are ridiculous and a departure from the plain meaning of my words.

originally posted by: intrepid
A new article today on nfl.com entitled "NFL's national anthem policy leaves room for more controversy."

www.nfl.com...

I can't read the black on white text. Having a bad cataract day.

Help a brother out? Can someone summarize that article?

Domestic abuse, concussions and other issues in sports but kneeling is the only thing the right has been vocal about.

Why is that?

a reply to: intrepid

Here, I hope you can read this.

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.

a reply to: intrepid


A little more rom the end of the a article:

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.

a reply to: intrepid

Key points:
- each organization is responsible for developing its own workplace rules on how it will handle players who violate the new policy

- 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

- there was not enough player involvement in the process

- The NFL Players Association issued a statement Wednesday noting that it was not consulted on the new policy and saying it would watch closely what the league and team rules will be, to see if they violate the collective bargaining agreement.

- This policy was a compromise -- not with players, but among a group of owners who made no secret of their differences on the subject

- 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.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Thanks man. So basically because of politics IF it continues with a few players owners can ignore/fine the player depending on where they are. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. And here's the god damn problem:

He might be surprised, at least if immediate social media reaction is an indication.

I don't even know why professional sports events even bother to play the national anthem. The only purpose I can see for it is to get everybody settled down and focused on the start of the game. But someone can certainly come up with a better, catchier song that would inform everybody, "Okay, we're going to start now. Still time to make it to the restroom and back."

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?

Blame Baseball, MLB made it a staple of the game a decade before congress adopted the song officially in 1931.

So in essence, its become tradition.

a reply to: intrepid

It basically explains that while the new NFL policy requires all team and league personal present on the field to stand and show respect for the flag and national anthem, it doesn't clarify what constitutes as respectful behavior. Also, it doesn't require anyone to actually be on the field during the anthem.

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?

But the main focus seems to be on the fact that while the teams can be fined for any violation of this new policy, each team gets to craft their own policy. And that's where the potential issues arise. There doesn't appear to be any restrictions or requirements for how these team policies are to be. And though each owner agreed to the new league policy, there were several who were clearly on the side of their players rights to do as they choose. So the question became whether some team owners would simply take the fine while refusing to demand players on their team to conform to the new league policy. And the money paid to the league may not even be an issue for some owners.

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.

The intent of the policy was an attempt to appease everyone while trying to avoid offending anyone. And as pointed out by some owners, they did so without any input from players. So until the team policies are actually created, the result of this new league policy appears to still leave the door open for further issue.

That seems to be the major points made by this article. If anyone has anything to add they are free to do so.

a reply to: projectvxn

I agree they are a business and have the right to make whatever rule they please with their employees. my bad if I assumed wrong but I did think you were calling them assholes for kneeling during the anthem in protest of the u.s governments non action against police brutality against POC.

If I am understanding you correctly then you agree with me that Trump (government) should not be getting involved in the NFL's business and policies regarding this topic?

whether or not I agree with them disrespecting the flag is a very gray area but I do respect their right to protest and the freedom to express that even if it means kneeling during the national anthem.