Where has it been said he had an option to wear a regular jersey? They had no option. They were required to wear that jersey and he refused, therefore he had to skip the pregame. That is obvious by the way it is reported. It is continually said that he boycotted it over his refusal to wear the jersey. If he had the option to skate anyway, that would have been reported to make it look even worse for him.
| CURRENT EVENTS Following Provorov's stance on Flyer's "Pride Night," NY Rangers "ditch LBGTQ+ jerseys."
- Thread starter SnakeDoc
- Start date
You may be right. It is an assumption.
The Pride night, emphasized during their skate around, was "in celebration and support of the LGBTQ+ community,." There were other things at the same time—images shown on the ice, their mascot skating around with the rainbow flag, etc. If he would have taken the ice during the skate around he may have felt he was still participating in something contrary to his religious beliefs.
Considering how they changed into regular sweaters he would have created a scene if he was the only one, right? It seems to be discretion came into play.
Sure there is.
I think an article about the partner for it and their response is very telling about the whole thing
Activism group disappointed in Provorov's boycott
You Can Play, the NHL's longtime social activism partner, wants to work with Philadelphia Flyers defenseman Ivan Provorov after he "negatively impacted" Pride Night by boycotting warmups Tuesday before a win over the Anaheim Ducks.
I read in another article that there were decorations and things going on around the arena during the game related to Pride Night, but there was no requirement for players to wear anything or participate in those. I am still looking for that article.
That's the article where I caught the "educational sessions."
Gotta fix those people that do not think the right way, you know the way these groups think smh...
He wasn’t required to just like nobody is, the NHL said as much and the commissioner is not somebody that holds back when need be and with some of the blowback towards the player Bettman would’ve said he’d be fined or whateverI think an article about the partner for it and their response is very telling about the whole thing
Activism group disappointed in Provorov's boycott
You Can Play, the NHL's longtime social activism partner, wants to work with Philadelphia Flyers defenseman Ivan Provorov after he "negatively impacted" Pride Night by boycotting warmups Tuesday before a win over the Anaheim Ducks.www.espn.com
I read in another article that there were decorations and things going on around the arena during the game related to Pride Night, but there was no requirement for players to wear anything or participate in those. I am still looking for that article.
There wasn’t decorations around anywhere where the cameras could see, I watched the first period of the game.
No. I know you’d like to think so, but no. Had it been a requirement Torts would’ve flipped for him not doing it, Torts doesn’t and has never held back
Good article.
Where?
He said it on the NHL Network
Regardless of any of this discussion, Torts is a JOKE of a coach!
The team said, “This is what we are wearing during warmups to celebrate/support gay pride.” He said “I don’t want to wear that jersey.” He didn’t want to support gay pride. Since he was not wearing the official team jersey during the warmup, he was allowed to not participate in the warmup as a single player in a different jersey would have been quickly noticed. However, people notice when players are absent without notice (due to injury, illness, legal issues, family issues, etc).
Can a team require a player or staff member to demonstrate support of a cause? Can a team require a player or staff member to wear a Trump button/patch? A Biden button/patch? Many NFL and NBA players were chastised when they wouldn’t kneel during the national anthem to support what others believed. IMO, professional and college teams need to get out of the business of social evangelism to pander to special interest groups. The majority shouldn’t have to bow to the minority.
The definition of required many seem to be using is off. If you have to do something in order to participate, then you are required to do it. The punishment for not doing so is an inability to participate in the thing. If your employer says you have to wear this pro-whateever uniform or you can't work, I would say it is required.
If they had a game in those jerseys he would have to miss the game and probably forfeit his pay for that game. Remember too that the jerseys were being auctioned off to be given to a pro-gay rights charity, which means participating and wearing the jersey would explicitly support that organization. And there are calls for the NHL to not allow players to play who do things like he did (which luckily the NHL is saying no to right now)
If they had a game in those jerseys he would have to miss the game and probably forfeit his pay for that game. Remember too that the jerseys were being auctioned off to be given to a pro-gay rights charity, which means participating and wearing the jersey would explicitly support that organization. And there are calls for the NHL to not allow players to play who do things like he did (which luckily the NHL is saying no to right now)
I know so.
Thanks. I should’ve said his name
As long as Bettman is the commissioner that’ll be the case
