Stand for the Anthem or Stay Off the Field

[bama alum]

...Til the anthem is over.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Well, it's a choice, but it's not the point. The owners are trying to be politically correct again and hope this goes away. If you're a player concerned with a particular injustice and you want your message out there why would you go stand in the shower during the anthem to get your point across? A lot of these guys aren't mad at the anthem they want social issues to be debated and brought into the light. After the owners spent all last season telling the press they support the player's right to freedom of speech on many social issues it looks like they are caving badly to public opinion or at least political opinion. Here's another opinion, the players aren't going to be happy with plan B.

 

[planomateo]

I hope this backfires on the owners in a big way...

Goddell gets to suspend players while the owners than employ him get away with the same nonsense. Aka, Jerry Jones playing grab ass and Jerry Richardson being a dumbass and selling his team.

Fans get to sit in the stands and do whatever the f they want while bitching about players for kneeling.

I still don't agree with the players, I don't think they've done anything with their platform...and now it's gone.

 

[bama alum]

What's the NFL going to do when the players come out and take a knee?

 

[planomateo]

Jets owner Christopher Johnson on record for saying he'll pay the fines. Wonder how this vote ended up, doesn't appear to have been 32-0.

 

[bama alum]

Jets owner Christopher Johnson on record for saying he'll pay the fines. Wonder how this vote ended up, doesn't appear to have been 32-0.

What vote?

NFL says formal vote on anthem policy not held

Formal vote before passing NFL's anthem policy not taken, league says
play
0:37

/

2:31

0:49



8:13 AM CT
The NFL did not take a formal roll-call vote when it passed its new national anthem resolution that will take effect this season, league spokesman Brian McCarthy confirmed Thursday.

EDITOR'S PICKS

• Broncos LB on Trump comments: 'Disgusting'
  Broncos linebacker Brandon Marshall had a strong reaction to Donald Trump's interview with Fox News about the NFL's new anthem policy, calling the president's comments "disgusting."
• Trump: NFL 'doing the right thing' with anthem
  President Donald Trump says the NFL is "doing the right thing" with a policy banning kneeling during the national anthem. The policy forbids players from sitting or taking a knee on the field during the anthem but allows them to stay in the locker room.
• Kerr blasts new NFL anthem policy: 'It's idiotic'
  Warriors coach Steve Kerr blasted the NFL's new national anthem policy Thursday, calling it "idiotic" and "typical of the NFL."

Instead, the league called for a show of owners' hands to test support of the new policy -- an unofficial process that is often used, McCarthy said. There were zero nays, he said.

"That was considered a vote," McCarthy said.

Sources told ESPN's Seth Wickersham that league officials wanted to make sure that the resolution would not fail, and so after hours of debate they called for the show of hands. The informal nature of it surprised some in the room. Not taking an official tally is atypical for a major resolution.

Later Thursday, Oakland Raidersowner Mark Davis confirmed what Wickersham reported earlier -- that he abstained from the vote. Davis would not comment further about why he abstained, saying he wanted to speak with his players first before going public with his rationale.

"I haven't changed my mind," Davis told ESPN's Paul Gutierrez, referring to his feelings on the matter.

McCarthy did not immediately return a request for comment.

The new policy requires players to stand if they are on the field during the anthem but gives them the option to remain in the locker room if they prefer. The policy subjects teams to a fine if a player or other team personnel do not show respect for the anthem. That includes any attempt to sit or kneel, as dozens of players have done during the past two seasons to protest racial inequality and police brutality.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said Wednesday the vote was "unanimous" among owners, although San Francisco 49ers owner Jed York said he abstained.

Pittsburgh Steelers president Art Rooney II told reporters Thursday that everyone had an opportunity to express their views, even if a formal vote wasn't taken.

Wednesday's decision drew praise from President Donald Trump, who told "Fox & Friends" on Thursday that the NFL was "doing the right thing."

The anthem policy will be part of the NFL's game operations manual and thus not subject to collective bargaining. The NFL Players Association said in a statement that it will review the policy and "challenge any aspect" that is inconsistent with the CBA.

NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith was on ESPN's Get Up! on Friday and called the league's voting process "haphazard."

"Suggests to me that this was more of a desperate attempt by a group of owners to simply quote-unquote 'get back to playing football' rather than to honestly and with a sense of what America means, to sit down and figure out what's the right thing to do," Smith said. "What I think they did was they sat down and tried to figure out, 'What can we get away with as quickly as possible?'"

Davis spoke to ESPN's Gutierrez about the anthem issue in September before the Raiders' nationally televised game in Washington, during the height of players taking a knee or sitting during the anthem in protest of police brutality against African-American men and inequality for people of color. At the time, Trump had just called any player kneeling a "son of a b----" who should be "fired" by the league.


"About a year ago, before our Tennessee game, I met with Derek Carr and Khalil Mack to ask their permission to have Tommie Smith light the torch for my father before the game in Mexico City," Davis said at the time. "I explained to them that I was asking their permission because I had previously told them that I would prefer that they not protest while in the Raiders uniform. And should they have something to say, once their uniform was off, I might go up there with them. Over the last year, though, the streets have gotten hot and there has been a lot of static in the air and recently, fuel has been added to the fire.

"I can no longer ask our team to not say something while they are in a Raider uniform. The only thing I can ask them to do is do it with class. Do it with pride. Not only do we have to tell people there is something wrong, we have to come up with answers. That's the challenge in front of us as Americans and human beings."

 

[planomateo]

Chicken shit owners. Vote, let your votes be known to the public. Players have the courage to show their faces...

opcorn2:

 

[sean]

while i absolutely HATE when players (or anyone else, for that matter) kneel during our National Anthem as a sign or protest. i also HATE this new rule. kneeling during the National Anthem is a freedom protected under the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. it is considered Freedom of Speech. granted, the protection comes in the form of you are protected from the U.S. government. but i still HATE when companies and organizations punish those for choosing to insert their guaranteed rights. it is appalling and fascist.

again, i do no agree with the players kneeling during the National Anthem, but i will defend their right to do so. wake up NFL owners/commissioner, you're not as powerful as you think you are.

 

[JoshB]

I hope this backfires on the owners in a big way...

Goddell gets to suspend players while the owners than employ him get away with the same nonsense. Aka, Jerry Jones playing grab ass and Jerry Richardson being a dumbass and selling his team.

Fans get to sit in the stands and do whatever the f they want while bitching about players for kneeling.

I still don't agree with the players, I don't think they've done anything with their platform...and now it's gone.

Richard Sherman: helps fund school supplies, clothes and food for low-income families.
Collin Kaepernick: has donated literally MILLIONS to a variety of families that benefit poor children, schools and low-income families.
Anquan Boldin: started his own charity to help underprivileged kids, donated one million dollars the year he started it (his salary was 900K that year). He has donated millions over the last several years.
Michael Bennett: donated every cent of his endorsement money to charities.
Chris Long: donated his ENTIRE game checks for the first six games last year to donate to kids in Charlottesville for college scholarships for kids at the high school he went to. The game checks for the last 10 games? Donated every single one of them to a charity to try and help Philadelphia's school system.
Julio Jones: 25K of his Under Armour endorsement each year goes to buying equipment, uniforms, etc. for Mobile area youth leagues. Donates 250K to Atlanta and Mobile charities each year for underprivileged children.

I'd say players are definitely doing something with their platform.

While Trump gets mad because a number of Eagles didnt want to go the White House and completely cancels it.

 

[planomateo]

I see charities as a tax shelter.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

while i absolutely HATE when players (or anyone else, for that matter) kneel during our National Anthem as a sign or protest. i also HATE this new rule. kneeling during the National Anthem is a freedom protected under the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. it is considered Freedom of Speech. granted, the protection comes in the form of you are protected from the U.S. government. but i still HATE when companies and organizations punish those for choosing to insert their guaranteed rights. it is appalling and fascist.

again, i do no agree with the players kneeling during the National Anthem, but i will defend their right to do so. wake up NFL owners/commissioner, you're not as powerful as you think you are.

It's not a free speech issue. Players are employees, fulfilling the responsibilities for which they are hired, and they are required to follow the work rules and policies set forth by their employers. Being televised while performing your job doesn't change that absolute.

RTR,

Tim

 

[TUSKtimes]

I read that Trump just uninvited the Eagles for their Whitehouse visit. Some of the players had personally canceled but apparently, a remnant still was willing to go. It was also reported that none of the Eagle players kneeled when the anthem was played last season. Another knee-jerk reaction by the POTUS to keep discontent running high nationally.

 

[JoshB]

while i absolutely HATE when players (or anyone else, for that matter) kneel during our National Anthem as a sign or protest. i also HATE this new rule. kneeling during the National Anthem is a freedom protected under the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. it is considered Freedom of Speech. granted, the protection comes in the form of you are protected from the U.S. government. but i still HATE when companies and organizations punish those for choosing to insert their guaranteed rights. it is appalling and fascist.

again, i do no agree with the players kneeling during the National Anthem, but i will defend their right to do so. wake up NFL owners/commissioner, you're not as powerful as you think you are.

It's not a free speech issue. Players are employees, fulfilling the responsibilities for which they are hired, and they are required to follow the work rules and policies set forth by their employers. Being televised while performing your job doesn't change that absolute.

RTR,

Tim

See, that's where you're wrong. NFL players have a CBA, no where in that CBA does it state that the players have to do anything during the anthem. Period. By making ANY rule the NFL has unilaterally changed that agreement and if the NFLPA wanted to fight it, it could get ugly. It's also why the NFL put in the rule that TEAMS, not players, will be fined if a player kneels. They literally CAN'T fine a player for that. Now, can an NFL team just fire a player for kneeling? Probably but what NFL owner is dumb enough to do that at this point? Probably more likely if its the third string outside linebacker than if JJ Watt does it, though.

I read that Trump just uninvited the Eagles for their Whitehouse visit. Some of the players had personally canceled but apparently, a remnant still was willing to go. It was also reported that none of the Eagle players kneeled when the anthem was played last season. Another knee-jerk reaction by the POTUS to keep discontent running high nationally.

Not only did none of them kneel but they stood in unity with one another, some of them with their arms linked or hands on each others backs, Trump's press statement was VERY transparent. This has nothing to do with the anthem, it's about him trying to make a certain percentage of people get rialed up and also so he can save face.

Want to know another way we can say that Trump's national anthem is nonsense? You know what Trump used to routinely do during the national anthem when he owned the New Jersey Generals in the USFL? He would conduct interviews with reporters, seated, or scream and curse at employees, again seated.

 

[JoshB]

 

[It Takes Eleven]

while i absolutely HATE when players (or anyone else, for that matter) kneel during our National Anthem as a sign or protest. i also HATE this new rule. kneeling during the National Anthem is a freedom protected under the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. it is considered Freedom of Speech. granted, the protection comes in the form of you are protected from the U.S. government. but i still HATE when companies and organizations punish those for choosing to insert their guaranteed rights. it is appalling and fascist.

again, i do no agree with the players kneeling during the National Anthem, but i will defend their right to do so. wake up NFL owners/commissioner, you're not as powerful as you think you are.

It's not a free speech issue. Players are employees, fulfilling the responsibilities for which they are hired, and they are required to follow the work rules and policies set forth by their employers. Being televised while performing your job doesn't change that absolute.

RTR,

Tim

See, that's where you're wrong. NFL players have a CBA, no where in that CBA does it state that the players have to do anything during the anthem. Period. By making ANY rule the NFL has unilaterally changed that agreement and if the NFLPA wanted to fight it, it could get ugly. It's also why the NFL put in the rule that TEAMS, not players, will be fined if a player kneels. They literally CAN'T fine a player for that. Now, can an NFL team just fire a player for kneeling? Probably but what NFL owner is dumb enough to do that at this point? Probably more likely if its the third string outside linebacker than if JJ Watt does it, though.

To be clear, I didn't mention collective bargaining. I said it's not protected free speech. However, since you mention collective bargaining, it's only fair to tell you a CBA does not cover all work conduct, rules and policies. That's with any industry. The article above states such when it notes, "The anthem policy will be part of the NFL's game operations manual and thus not subject to collective bargaining." You're right, the union probably will contest it, but the operations manual is an example of something outside a CBA.

You may not like, and you can rant about it, but facts are facts.

RTR,

Tim

 

[JoshB]

while i absolutely HATE when players (or anyone else, for that matter) kneel during our National Anthem as a sign or protest. i also HATE this new rule. kneeling during the National Anthem is a freedom protected under the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. it is considered Freedom of Speech. granted, the protection comes in the form of you are protected from the U.S. government. but i still HATE when companies and organizations punish those for choosing to insert their guaranteed rights. it is appalling and fascist.

again, i do no agree with the players kneeling during the National Anthem, but i will defend their right to do so. wake up NFL owners/commissioner, you're not as powerful as you think you are.

It's not a free speech issue. Players are employees, fulfilling the responsibilities for which they are hired, and they are required to follow the work rules and policies set forth by their employers. Being televised while performing your job doesn't change that absolute.

RTR,

Tim

See, that's where you're wrong. NFL players have a CBA, no where in that CBA does it state that the players have to do anything during the anthem. Period. By making ANY rule the NFL has unilaterally changed that agreement and if the NFLPA wanted to fight it, it could get ugly. It's also why the NFL put in the rule that TEAMS, not players, will be fined if a player kneels. They literally CAN'T fine a player for that. Now, can an NFL team just fire a player for kneeling? Probably but what NFL owner is dumb enough to do that at this point? Probably more likely if its the third string outside linebacker than if JJ Watt does it, though.

To be clear, I didn't mention collective bargaining. I said it's not protected free speech. However, since you mention collective bargaining, it's only fair to tell you a CBA does not cover all work conduct, rules and policies. That's with any industry. The article above states such when it notes, "The anthem policy will be part of the NFL's game operations manual and thus not subject to collective bargaining." You're right, the union probably will contest it, but the operations manual is an example of something outside a CBA.

You may not like, and you can rant about it, but facts are facts.

RTR,

Tim

Dude, i understand you dont like me and you want to be a jerk at all times but I wasn't ranting about anything. I brought up the CBA because that's what the NFLPA is likely going to cite, because the NFLPA is supposed to have some say (and the owners) in any rules changes, especially with fines. They are trying to skirt it by saying the NFL is just going to fine the teams. But if you want me to rant, I can go off about the presidents collusion and interference in all of this if you want me to? THAT I will rant about.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

while i absolutely HATE when players (or anyone else, for that matter) kneel during our National Anthem as a sign or protest. i also HATE this new rule. kneeling during the National Anthem is a freedom protected under the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. it is considered Freedom of Speech. granted, the protection comes in the form of you are protected from the U.S. government. but i still HATE when companies and organizations punish those for choosing to insert their guaranteed rights. it is appalling and fascist.

again, i do no agree with the players kneeling during the National Anthem, but i will defend their right to do so. wake up NFL owners/commissioner, you're not as powerful as you think you are.

It's not a free speech issue. Players are employees, fulfilling the responsibilities for which they are hired, and they are required to follow the work rules and policies set forth by their employers. Being televised while performing your job doesn't change that absolute.

RTR,

Tim

See, that's where you're wrong. NFL players have a CBA, no where in that CBA does it state that the players have to do anything during the anthem. Period. By making ANY rule the NFL has unilaterally changed that agreement and if the NFLPA wanted to fight it, it could get ugly. It's also why the NFL put in the rule that TEAMS, not players, will be fined if a player kneels. They literally CAN'T fine a player for that. Now, can an NFL team just fire a player for kneeling? Probably but what NFL owner is dumb enough to do that at this point? Probably more likely if its the third string outside linebacker than if JJ Watt does it, though.

To be clear, I didn't mention collective bargaining. I said it's not protected free speech. However, since you mention collective bargaining, it's only fair to tell you a CBA does not cover all work conduct, rules and policies. That's with any industry. The article above states such when it notes, "The anthem policy will be part of the NFL's game operations manual and thus not subject to collective bargaining." You're right, the union probably will contest it, but the operations manual is an example of something outside a CBA.

You may not like, and you can rant about it, but facts are facts.

RTR,

Tim

Dude, i understand you dont like me and you want to be a jerk at all times but I wasn't ranting about anything. I brought up the CBA because that's what the NFLPA is likely going to cite, because the NFLPA is supposed to have some say (and the owners) in any rules changes, especially with fines. They are trying to skirt it by saying the NFL is just going to fine the teams. But if you want me to rant, I can go off about the presidents collusion and interference in all of this if you want me to? THAT I will rant about.

I don't even know you. Before today, have I even responded to a post of yours? I said it's not free speech, and you told me I was wrong because of a CBA, and you went off on a bonus Trump tangent. CBA's are not all encompassing, and the ops manual shows that. That's all. The players are private employees subject to rules of conduct set by their employers.

Trump is an indefensible dolt. Save your time typing.

RTR,

Tim

 

[sean]

It's not a free speech issue. Players are employees, fulfilling the responsibilities for which they are hired, and they are required to follow the work rules and policies set forth by their employers. Being televised while performing your job doesn't change that absolute.

RTR,

Tim

ok, not free speech; but a form of protest. and that is included in the first amendment, as well. so i was wrong there.

and again, yes those amendments protect you from the government...but i still don't think it's right that they be punished by their employer for practicing those rights.
if the company i worked for told me i was required to stand/kneel/do jumping jacks/whatever, during the national anthem, and it was different than what i wanted to do, would they then have recourse to terminate me? in all honestly, i don't know. i would hope they wouldn't; but they may have a just reason to do so.

but i'd still make the same argument about it. i don't think they should be allowed to punish the players for exercising their 1st amendment rights. yes, legally, they may be able to do just that...but that doesn't make it right.

 

[TUSKtimes]

ok, not free speech; but a form of protest. and that is included in the first amendment, as well. so i was wrong there.

and again, yes those amendments protect you from the government...but i still don't think it's right that they be punished by their employer for practicing those rights.
if the company i worked for told me i was required to stand/kneel/do jumping jacks/whatever, during the national anthem, and it was different than what i wanted to do, would they then have recourse to terminate me? in all honestly, i don't know. i would hope they wouldn't; but they may have a just reason to do so.

but i'd still make the same argument about it. i don't think they should be allowed to punish the players for exercising their 1st amendment rights. yes, legally, they may be able to do just that...but that doesn't make it right.

I do agree. And when all else fails some folks will just have to have enough resolve to stick to their conscientious convictions and be willing to pay the price and go it alone.

Yesterday a supreme court case ruled that a cake baker had the right to not make a wedding cake for 2 homosexuals. How did it get that far? Definitions of right and wrong keep changing with society over time. It's always been kinda scary when the supreme court or any court of government is asked to intervene on matters of the conscious.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

It's not a free speech issue. Players are employees, fulfilling the responsibilities for which they are hired, and they are required to follow the work rules and policies set forth by their employers. Being televised while performing your job doesn't change that absolute.

RTR,

Tim

ok, not free speech; but a form of protest. and that is included in the first amendment, as well. so i was wrong there.

and again, yes those amendments protect you from the government...but i still don't think it's right that they be punished by their employer for practicing those rights.
if the company i worked for told me i was required to stand/kneel/do jumping jacks/whatever, during the national anthem, and it was different than what i wanted to do, would they then have recourse to terminate me? in all honestly, i don't know. i would hope they wouldn't; but they may have a just reason to do so.

but i'd still make the same argument about it. i don't think they should be allowed to punish the players for exercising their 1st amendment rights. yes, legally, they may be able to do just that...but that doesn't make it right.

I understand where you're coming from, but the employer has the right and discretion to limit your protests when you are on duty. For example, let's say you are an advocate for the legalization of something, let's say pot, and you want to wear your "Legalize Pot Now!" T-shirt while you are making house calls as a service technician for a HVAC/pest control/plumber/etc. as a form of protest. The First Amendment protects your right to wear that shirt after hours (or any other shirt - Black/Blue Lives Matter, etc.), but not while you're on duty.