regularguy

NFL: Either stand for the anthem or stay off the field until it's over

640 posts in this topic

Funny how so many people are apparently upset with the NFL over a policy which gives players the freedom to not actively participate in standing on the field for the anthem, yet they have no issue with the NBA which has had a much stronger policy in place for years requiring all players to respectfully stand for the anthem.  

 

Quote

 

In a memo to teams, deputy NBA commissioner Mark Tatum reminded them, "The NBA has a rule that players, coaches and trainers stand respectfully for the anthem. The league office will determine how to deal with any possible instance in which a player, coach or trainer does not stand for the anthem. (Teams do not have the discretion to waive this rule)."

And if you're curious what penalty NBA players would face if they do step out of line, look no further than Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, the Muslim former Nugget who refused to stand because of his religious and personal beliefs in 1996. Abdul-Rauf called the flag a "symbol of oppression, of tyranny."   "This country has a long history of that," he said. "I don't think you can argue the facts. You can't be for God and for oppression. It's clear in the Koran, Islam is the only way. I don't criticize those who stand, so don't criticize me for sitting. I won't waver from my decision."

The NBA suspended him one game and he had to give up $31,707 in salary as punishment. He agreed to stand and pray during the anthem going forward.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/nfl-ripped-anthem-policy-nba-free-pass-article-1.4008048

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cprenegade said:

Funny how so many people are apparently upset with the NFL over a policy which gives players the freedom to not actively participate in standing on the field for the anthem, yet they have no issue with the NBA which has had a much stronger policy in place for years requiring all players to respectfully stand for the anthem.  

 

 

Probably because that policy hasn't been challenged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, hst2 said:

Probably because that policy hasn't been challenged. 

Nor should it be.  Business sets down a code of behavior that it's employees need to follow.  Just interesting that people want to condemn the NFL policy and yet say nothing about the NBA policy which is much more restricting.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

19 hours ago, blowboatbethesda said:

MM had best stick with his day job, as an "expert" in constitutional law he is obviously quite...lacking. :P:D:rolleyes:

Lock him up! Trump broke the law (again). 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227

18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch

Edited by Marshan Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Marshan Man said:

Lock him up! Trump broke the law (again). 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227

 

 

Nope. That statute is unconstitutionally vague.

He has not done anything remotely within the description of (a)(1) or (2). There needs to be some kind of official act.

Yelling on twitter isn't an official act.

Nice try, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, blowboatbethesda said:

Nope. That statute is unconstitutionally vague.

He has not done anything remotely within the description of (a)(1) or (2). There needs to be some kind of official act.

Yelling on twitter isn't an official act.

Nice try, though.

He gave several speeches around the country about the matter. “ OR Influences... the official act of another...”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 minutes ago, Marshan Man said:

He gave several speeches around the country about the matter. “ OR Influences... the official act of another...”

People are free to ignore whatever Trump says. Most of us have learned to do just that. I can assure you that not one word that Trump might utter or post will have any influence on what I choose to do. I choose to ignore the Moron in Chief. As they say, this too shall pass. Hopefully sooner than later.

Quite frankly, in my humble opinion anyone who allows Trump's words to influence them is a blithering idiot. And unfortunately we seem to have quite a lot of those in this country these days. :mellow:

Edited by Papi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Papi said:

People are free to ignore whatever Trump says. Most of us have learned to do just that. I can assure you that not one word that Trump might utter or post will have any influence on what I choose to do. I choose to ignore the Moron in Chief. As they say, this too shall pass. Hopefully sooner than later.

Quite frankly, in my humble opinion anyone who allows Trump's words to influence them is a blithering idiot. And unfortunately we seem to have quite a lot of those in this country these days. :mellow:

Tell that to the NFL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Papi said:

People are free to ignore whatever Trump says. Most of us have learned to do just that. I can assure you that not one word that Trump might utter or post will have any influence on what I choose to do. I chose to ignore the Moron in Chief. As they say, this too shall pass. Hopefully sooner than later.

Quite frankly, in my humble opinion anyone who allows Trump's words to influence them is a blithering idiot. And unfortunately we seem to have quite a lot of those in this country these days. :mellow:

Indeed. Others should stick with what they know, for instance, pondering business opportunities such as  TMDL credits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Marshan Man said:

Tell that to the NFL. 

The NFL responded to their fan base, not Trump. How many of those fans were listening to Trump no one knows.

But based on the few NFL games I attend (at most 1 per season) I can assure you that the fan base contains plenty of blithering idiots, many of whom are drunk as a skunk after tailgate parties. :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Papi said:

The NFL responded to their fan base, not Trump. How many of those fans were listening to Trump no one knows.

But based on the few NFL games I attend (at most 1 per season) I can assure you that the fan base contains plenty of blithering idiots, many of whom are drunk as a skunk after tailgate parties. :P 

In one breath you state to ignore Trump; then you state the NFL responded to its fan base. Obviously, people do not ignore Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NCBirdfan said:

In one breath you state to ignore Trump; then you state the NFL responded to its fan base. Obviously, people do not ignore Trump.

You don't believe people were patriotic before Trump ..??

I remember people jumping on Reagan for being patriotic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, stevez51 said:

You don't believe people were patriotic before Trump ..??

I remember people jumping on Reagan for being patriotic.

People getting all bent out of shape over players kneeling are not patriotic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, cprenegade said:

Funny how so many people are apparently upset with the NFL over a policy which gives players the freedom to not actively participate in standing on the field for the anthem, yet they have no issue with the NBA which has had a much stronger policy in place for years requiring all players to respectfully stand for the anthem.  

 

 

True but the NBA gives players and coaches more space to express their political opinions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NCBirdfan said:

In one breath you state to ignore Trump; then you state the NFL responded to its fan base. Obviously, people do not ignore Trump.

I said that people who don't ignore Trump are blithering idiots, and I also stated that among the NFL fan base there are lots of blithering idiots. I also said the NFL was not responding to Trump, but to its fan base (which is an economic decision, not a political or racial one).

My posts have been quite consistent. Perhaps if you read them in the correct order next time...:rolleyes: 

Obviously, lots of people do not ignore Trump, and in my opinion that makes them blithering idiots. Unfortunately they are also consumers who spend money (or refuse to spend money) as a result of their idiocy. Businesses concerned about their income have no choice but to try to address that economic reality, as the NFL has done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Papi said:

I said that people who don't ignore Trump are blithering idiots, and I also stated that among the NFL fan base there are lots of blithering idiots. I also said the NFL was not responding to Trump, but to its fan base (which is an economic decision, not a political or racial one).

My posts have been quite consistent. Perhaps if you read them in the correct order next time...:rolleyes: 

Obviously, lots of people do not ignore Trump, and in my opinion that makes them blithering idiots. Unfortunately they are also consumers who spend money (or refuse to spend money) as a result of their idiocy. Businesses concerned about their income have no choice but to try to address that economic reality, as the NFL has done.

Imagine if these "blithering idiots" would have convinced MLB to get rid of Jackie Robinson when he became the first black player in modern-day history to play in the bigs. Of course back then Robinson had to know his place and he had to be a complete gentleman both on and off the field. He knew he was on a thin leash and it didn't matter that he was better than most whites that played then.

Some Dodger players insinuated they would sit out rather than play alongside Robinson. The brewing mutiny ended when Dodgers management took a stand for Robinson.  the St. Louis Cardinals threatened to strike if Robinson played, but also to spread the walkout across the entire National League. But Happy Chandler the MLB Commissioner at the time stepped in and said, "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. I guess MLB should have just caved in and allowed the "blithering idiots" of the day to dictate Jackie Robinson's fate. Luckily they didn't have the current cowardly NFL owners.

Edited by NCBirdfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NCBirdfan said:

Imagine if these "blithering idiots" would have convinced MLB to get rid of Jackie Robinson when he became the first black player in modern-day history to play in the bigs. Of course back then Robinson had to know his place and he had to be a complete gentleman both on and off the field. He knew he was on a thin leash and it didn't matter that he was better than most whites that played then.

Some Dodger players insinuated they would sit out rather than play alongside Robinson. The brewing mutiny ended when Dodgers management took a stand for Robinson.  the St. Louis Cardinals threatened to strike if Robinson played, but also to spread the walkout across the entire National League. But Happy Chandler the MLB Commissioner at the time stepped in and said, "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. I guess MLB should have just caved in and allowed the "blithering idiots" of the day to dictate Jackie Robinson's fate. Luckily they didn't have the current cowardly NFL owners.

Still playing the race card on this thread even after that other crap was deleted .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 minutes ago, Eastside Terp said:

Still playing the race card on this thread even after that other crap was deleted .....

Well you replied to it in anger, didn't you?

Edited by NCBirdfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soulflower said:

True but the NBA gives players and coaches more space to express their political opinions

How so? I would think that players in both leagues can freely express political opinions outside of the workplace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, NCBirdfan said:

Imagine if these "blithering idiots" would have convinced MLB to get rid of Jackie Robinson when he became the first black player in modern-day history to play in the bigs. Of course back then Robinson had to know his place and he had to be a complete gentleman both on and off the field. He knew he was on a thin leash and it didn't matter that he was better than most whites that played then.

Some Dodger players insinuated they would sit out rather than play alongside Robinson. The brewing mutiny ended when Dodgers management took a stand for Robinson.  the St. Louis Cardinals threatened to strike if Robinson played, but also to spread the walkout across the entire National League. But Happy Chandler the MLB Commissioner at the time stepped in and said, "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. I guess MLB should have just caved in and allowed the "blithering idiots" of the day to dictate Jackie Robinson's fate. Luckily they didn't have the current cowardly NFL owners.

I find it rather strange that you are equating the Jackie Robinson history with the current NFL situation. On an economic level the comparison is flawed, and as I said previously I see the current NFL action is an economic one, not a racial one.

Back in the late 40's there was no social media, and fans were not threatening en mass to boycott major league baseball - that threat came from players. Those players were told BY THEIR EMPLOYERS AT THE TIME what they had to do (which is the better parallel to the current NFL action). Back then no one complained that the "civil rights" of white baseball players were being curtailed by the actions of Mr. Chandler or the Dodger's management. They were told to play the game they were being paid to play or you will pay the consequences. Sound familiar?

I suspect that if players had refused to play there were plenty of farm team players in 1947 who would have jumped at the chance to move up to the bigs and take their place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, soulflower said:

True but the NBA gives players and coaches more space to express their political opinions

Just don't do it on the court for TV .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Marshan Man said:

Tell that to the NFL. 

If the players feel so damn strongly about it.

Then QUIT... break the contract....go get a job at 7-11 or Jiffy Lube.....it is THAT SIMPLE.

But then....that would mean...giving up the BMW, the bling, etc. It would mean you would actually have to work for a living ....not be on a 24/7 adolescent sports high.

And well I guess Kap. was forced to take that route....fortunately he has some bucks from the earlier contracts.....so..... what have we heard from his kneel a thon lately?

As I said....and other's too. If I write the check for a job you are hired to do....then I as the check writer has the right to TELL YOU HOW TO DO THE JOB I HIRED YOU FOR.

Don't like it......there's the door....see yah. There are plenty of others more than willing to shut up and do the job. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, soulflower said:

True but the NBA gives players and coaches more space to express their political opinions

Like how? Explain your statement.

Details not BS....I want explicit examples of how the NBA and NFL are so different in freedom of political expression. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Analysis: History will prove Colin Kaepernick was right

Within minutes of each other Wednesday afternoon, Mike Pence and Donald Trump Jr. spiked the proverbial football. NFL owners had just announced a new policy for the national anthem that called for players to either stay in the locker room or stand for the song. Kneeling would now be punished. Both men tweeted the same hashtag: #winning.

The glee spread among Republicans. Mike Braun, a Senate candidate in Indiana, sent out an email blast extolling the news and dared his Democratic opponent, Joe Donnelly, to oppose it. On CNN, Chris Cuomo asked Nancy Pelosi for her reaction. The leader of the Democratic Party in the House seemed in no mood to lock arms with the players and took a pass. “I love the national anthem,” Pelosi said. “And I love the First Amendment and I’ll leave it at that.”

The player who started it all, Colin Kaepernick, began his protest in the fall of 2016 when he knelt to bring attention to racial inequality and police violence against minorities. The media who scorned them in the hottest moment of their protest produced respectful biopics and coolly reconsidered their roles in a much longer arc of history. In short, these kneeling football players’ reputations will likely be rehabilitated sufficiently that the general public who boycotted and harassed them for disrupting their entertainment with politics may well one day embrace them as unsung heroes. “This isn’t a win that history is going to look too kindly on,” said Lou Moore, a sports historian and Grand Valley State University professor. “It will take some time, but Kaepernick will be proven right.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now