Heretic;1873421 wrote:You do realize this whole situation blew up because the president (aka: GOVERNMENT) openly encouraged owners to fire those sons of bitches who did choose to kneel, don't you? Not that big of a line between the government punishing a person for exercising free speech and the government sanctioning said punishment.

Unless the POTUS has the power to actually fire the players himself, it's a sizeable line.

like_that;1873445 wrote:Can someone please entertain my question?!?!?!? What do you think the reaction would be if these guys protested something else. Let's say they kneel down to protest against abortions since that is a touchy subject. Do you think each side would be consistent with their current reactions? I don't.

Even though (using your example of abortion) I'm against abortion as birth control, I still wouldn't want to sit down, relax, drink some sort of adult beverage, watch a good [hopefully] football game and have to watch somebody elses political ideas. I don't care what any football player has for their political opinion. Although there are players I respect admire and love to watch, they aren't THAT important to me where I feel the need to know that about them.
If an athlete wants to have a discussion on politics and/or ideology, there are so many ways now to do that that wasn't available to them not so very long ago.
Twitter
Facebook
Youtube
Minds
Instagram
Reddit
etc

And they would get huge international followings for their opinions, not just their athletic ability. Instead, they are getting negative extracurricular attention because they are trying to bring forth a worthwhile discussion in a wrong forum.

fish82;1873477 wrote:Which is probably why I didn't mention the rulebook, but referred to the operations manual, as did the original article on the topic.

The original article is what Snopes originally face-planted on when trying to discredit it. That said, I'm not sure why facebook dummies calling it the "rulebook" instead of the operations manual somehow discredits it.

The fact is that it's league policy that players stand at attention for the anthem, and Goodell is once again being exposed as a hypocrite.

Maybe I am,missing something but Snopes' article seems,pretty nuanced and references both a rulebook and an operations manual and cites the operations manual as saying discipline is discretionary for emperor Goodell

http://www.snopes.com/must-nfl-players-stand/

Point remains that anyone who would consider these protests to be the final straw to turning off the NFL is a politically correct snowflake in need of a safe space on par with any liberal arts sjw imho.

I just heard on the radio this morning that several people are going to stop supporting the Steelers. As a sports fan, I'm ok with that since I despise the franchise :RpS_w00t:

CenterBHSFan;1873487 wrote:I just heard on the radio this morning that several people are going to stop supporting the Steelers. As a sports fan, I'm ok with that since I despise the franchise :RpS_w00t:

My response to those fans is this. You were okay with a rapist quarterback, but this is too much for you?

superman;1873494 wrote:My response to those fans is this. You were okay with a rapist quarterback, but this is too much for you?

For that fan base, probably a "soft" ban. When the Roethlisberger thing first came down, many of their fans were screaming "cut him, trade him, get rid of him !!!" and after he served his suspension it was "Big Ben, Godsend." Fans are fickle.

MNF was highest watched MNF game this season so far. Lol at anyone who thought/thinks the nfl will take a hit.

fish82;1873477 wrote:Which is probably why I didn't mention the rulebook, but referred to the operations manual, as did the original article on the topic.

The original article is what Snopes originally face-planted on when trying to discredit it. That said, I'm not sure why facebook dummies calling it the "rulebook" instead of the operations manual somehow discredits it.

The fact is that it's league policy that players stand at attention for the anthem, and Goodell is once again being exposed as a hypocrite.

The operations manual doesn't even require it.

“During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking.

Key words in there: "players on the field and bench area" AND "should stand at attention." It does not say the players are "required" to be on the field. Nor does it say they are "required" to stand.

I get it, I imagine "should stand at attention" probably does mean "are required to stand at attention." Unfortunately, it doesn't say that and there is ambiguity.

Yes, it goes on to say:

"Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”

Doesn't actually say that any of those things "must" or "will" happen.

I know I'm in with semantics, but they are important. It's how they were written. And, I agree with you on Goodell being Goodell in this regard. Why the ambiguity? Why not take a hard stance?

But, I also see that semantics are important here -- i.e., A62-63 doesn't exist and NOTHING is mandated. They are all suggestions and possibilities.

Compare that wording to this:

“All persons representing a Federation national team shall stand respectfully during the playing of national anthems at any event in which the Federation is represented”

Shall denotes a requirement that is mandatory, an individual must adhere to what is required. Should denotes a recommendation, allows an individual to make a judgement call. Sorry for getting hung up on this...I just get caught up in it, and seeing tons of misinformation amongst my social media hasn't helped.

BoatShoes;1873483 wrote:Maybe I am,missing something but Snopes' article seems,pretty nuanced and references both a rulebook and an operations manual and cites the operations manual as saying discipline is discretionary for emperor Goodell

http://www.snopes.com/must-nfl-players-stand/

That's at least the 2nd, if not the 3rd version of the Snopes article. In their first hot take the other day, they didn't even know the operations manual existed.

BoatShoes;1873483 wrote:Point remains that anyone who would consider these protests to be the final straw to turning off the NFL is a politically correct snowflake in need of a safe space on par with any liberal arts sjw imho.

Agreed. I have zero stake in this either way, other than Goodell continuing his streak of hypocritical idiocy running the show.

like_that;1873510 wrote:MNF was highest watched MNF game this season so far. Lol at anyone who thought/thinks the nfl will take a hit.

Thats my thoughts as well. But, I will admit this was an easy prediction given t was the Cowboys first primetime game. They are easily the top draw in the NFL.

like_that;1873510 wrote:MNF was highest watched MNF game this season so far. Lol at anyone who thought/thinks the nfl will take a hit.

MILLIONS OF FANS LOST!! MILLIONS!

OSH;1873513 wrote:The operations manual doesn't even require it.


Key words in there: "players on the field and bench area" AND "should stand at attention." It does not say the players are "required" to be on the field. Nor does it say they are "required" to stand.

I get it, I imagine "should stand at attention" probably does mean "are required to stand at attention." Unfortunately, it doesn't say that and there is ambiguity.

Yes, it goes on to say:


Doesn't actually say that any of those things "must" or "will" happen.

I know I'm in with semantics, but they are important. It's how they were written. And, I agree with you on Goodell being Goodell in this regard. Why the ambiguity? Why not take a hard stance?

But, I also see that semantics are important here -- i.e., A62-63 doesn't exist and NOTHING is mandated. They are all suggestions and possibilities.

Compare that wording to this:


Shall denotes a requirement that is mandatory, an individual must adhere to what is required. Should denotes a recommendation, allows an individual to make a judgement call. Sorry for getting hung up on this...I just get caught up in it, and seeing tons of misinformation amongst my social media hasn't helped.

If it was a "recommendation," there really wouldn't be a reason to mention penalties at all.

You can dance around the semantics all you'd like...no skin off my nose. At the end of the day, it's league policy, and not disputable.

MontyBrunswick;1873377 wrote:career? he probably sold hotdogs part-time for $8/hr

You're just mad that another real American stood up for America.

More like standing in the unemployment line. GOOD LUCK!

Automatik;1873520 wrote:MILLIONS OF FANS LOST!! MILLIONS!

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/heres-nfl-sponsors-reacting-trumps-national-anthem-crusade-223102060.html

And sponsor reactions? Mainly neutral "we support both the flag and people speaking freely" stuff, with a bit of outright support for the athletes.

like_that;1873445 wrote:Can someone please entertain my question?!?!?!? What do you think the reaction would be if these guys protested something else. Let's say they kneel down to protest against abortions since that is a touchy subject. Do you think each side would be consistent with their current reactions? I don't.

Yes, they would. And the reason remains, they are aiming their protest at the flag which represents our country and constitution. That should not be the target, at all. They should be standing and cheering for the flag because it represents the freedoms that allow them to assemble and protest and work for the change they wish to see. They are literally protesting against the very mechanism which affords them their right to make change. It is astonishing how short-sighted and, simply, stupid they are by proceeding in the manner they have chosen.

Will people stop saying this was against the rules in the NFL? It wasn't. If this were the NBA or women's US soccer, it would be against the rules. But in the NFL it's not.

SportsAndLady;1873535 wrote:Will people stop saying this was against the rules in the NFL? It wasn't. If this were the NBA or women's US soccer, it would be against the rules. But in the NFL it's not.

The "rules" and "league policy" are two different things.

fish82;1873536 wrote:The "rules" and "league policy" are two different things.

It's league policy that players SHOULD stand for the anthem. It is NOT league policy that players MUST stand for the anthem.

There is a difference in those 2 words, should and must.

fish82;1873522 wrote:If it was a "recommendation," there really wouldn't be a reason to mention penalties at all.

You can dance around the semantics all you'd like...no skin off my nose. At the end of the day, it's league policy, and not disputable.

The "penalties" refer to being ON the field, not standing.

Which is why the league announced that the 3 teams would not be penalized for staying in the locker room.

fish82;1873536 wrote:The "rules" and "league policy" are two different things.

Who cares? It wasn't against the rules for players to kneel. So stop bringing it up.

wildcats20;1873538 wrote:It's league policy that players SHOULD stand for the anthem. It is NOT league policy that players MUST stand for the anthem.

I don't recall saying that it was. Either way, if the league wasn't at least somewhat serious about it, they wouldn't have mentioned penalties at all, no?

SportsAndLady;1873544 wrote:Who cares? It wasn't against the rules for players to kneel. So stop bringing it up.

I never said it was against the rules.

Reading is your friend.

fish82;1873550 wrote:I don't recall saying that it was. Either way, if the league wasn't at least somewhat serious about it, they wouldn't have mentioned penalties at all, no?

The league is the owners, who at least publicly, mostly back the players.

Trying to recall how many players sat for the anthem when OJ Simpson got away with murdering a white woman.