Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Standing during the Pledge or National Anthem

Burgold

By Burgold
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

Kilmer17

Kilmer17

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

There are many who would disagree. 

 

I think that's one of the questions, and I don't know that the business owners have the right to force them to stand. Believe it or not just because you pay someone doesn't mean that you get to dictate their every move, even when they're on the clock and ESPECIALLY if they have a specifically negotiated contract. If they have a contract then as the business owner you only have the right to demand adherence to the contract, and if they don't then you have a choice to make. 

I agree.  I don’t know if they do or not.   But I bet they would be called upon to make players stop if any of them started making nazi salutes during the anthem.  Rightfully so. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff

Spaceman Spiff

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, grego said:

 

i think there are couple of things that this position gets wrong- how good (or bad) Keap was his last 2ish years as a starter, (some of his passing stats are the worst or among the worst in the league over that time). how his style is not ideal for a backup, and the crap in terms of distraction a team has to deal with if they sign him. not to mention the financial hit a team would likely take or the other baggage- the gf tweet probably put a nail in the coffin of his nfl career. as an owner, i would stay away based on that as much as anything. put it all together, and what do you get?

 

i say this while taking your side in terms of can he or should he be able to do it and thinking some good will come of it. 

 

 

why did you put service in quotes?

 

I see where you're coming from and I agree to a certain extent.  Personally, I think Kap had no social conscious until he started dating her and thats when this all started.  I'm not saying I don't think he believes in what he's doing, I just think he was influenced by her.  But yeah, she's not doing him any favors.  

 

Fully agree that a team signing him would be a massive distraction, ESPN would be monitoring every single thing, every single day.  We'd get updates on which way Kap would be leaning when he'd fart on the bench. 

 

I just think it's ****ed up that someone gets busted for a federal crime and is back in the league in a few weeks.  Kap didn't break any laws.  

 

He's not the best QB, for sure.  But man, a team like the Bills with Peterman and rookie Josh Allen look pathetic at the QB position.  He couldn't be worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grego

grego

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

I see where you're coming from and I agree to a certain extent.  Personally, I think Kap had no social conscious until he started dating her and thats when this all started.  I'm not saying I don't think he believes in what he's doing, I just think he was influenced by her.  But yeah, she's not doing him any favors.  

 

Fully agree that a team signing him would be a massive distraction, ESPN would be monitoring every single thing, every single day.  We'd get updates on which way Kap would be leaning when he'd fart on the bench. 

 

I just think it's ****ed up that someone gets busted for a federal crime and is back in the league in a few weeks.  Kap didn't break any laws.  

 

He's not the best QB, for sure.  But man, a team like the Bills with Peterman and rookie Josh Allen look pathetic at the QB position.  He couldn't be worse.

 

 

i agree with that. I think alot of it comes to the system. if he were aaron rodgers, he'd have a job. i haven't seen anything that indicates Keap can be effective as a pocket passer (this is where his numbers are really, really bad), so you need to change your system. Keap could be great in a specific system, but he is likely not much better if he is at all compared to the petermans of the world as a pocket passer, but even if he were just standard backup level good, a team has to take on the **** storm around him. teams dont take on **** storms unless your abilities make up for the **** storm. 

 

i think thats why dez bryant doesnt have a job- he's good enough to play on a team, no doubt. but the way he left dallas and threw his team under the bus was pretty ****ed up. at this point, he looks like a delusional asshole and teams dont want to deal with that. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zoony

zoony

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, scruffylookin said:

 

As as long as we continue to spiral down as a country where more and more we act as if military “service” makes one more of a citizen than those who have not, the anthem and all the militarism that goes along with it now a days, has become political. 

 

This part I agree with.  Its nauseating.  Lets face it, a large percentage of the military is not joining out of loyalty or duty.

 

I am not hating on anyone in the military for sure, it is a noble and worthwhile job or career.  Im just tired of constantly being bombarded with veteran this and veteran that.  Not all veterans are the same.  I have a friend who took shrapnel at the dmz in vietnam.  I also have a friend who joined the army after high school and learned how to be an air traffic controller on uncle sam, so he could get out and work as a civillian.  These are just not the same thing.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

The actions aren’t.  The owners ability or inability to prevent them are definitely equivalent. 

I don't know that they are.

One is a blatantly racist and historically offensive action, the other is a silent protest against perceived police brutality.

I believe that the owners would be far more empowered to prevent the former as compared to the latter.

4 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

This part I agree with.  Its nauseating.  Lets face it, a large percentage of the military is not joining out of loyalty or duty.

 

I am not hating on anyone in the military for sure, it is a noble and worthwhile job or career.  Im just tired of constantly being bombarded with veteran this and veteran that.  Not all veterans are the same.  I have a friend who took shrapnel at the dmz in vietnam.  I also have a friend who joined the army after high school and learned how to be an air traffic controller on uncle sam, so he could get out and work as a civillian.  These are just not the same thing.

I'm a veteran and I 100% agree with this.

There is a local mom-n-pop gas station near me and on his reader board out front he always has "100% Veteran Owned". Every time I pass it I just think, "Who gives a ****? Do you come to me to sell your house because I'm a veteran or because I know what the **** I'm doing and I'm damn good at my job?"

Well, to be honest I usually just think the first question, the second one is implied.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kilmer17

Kilmer17

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I don't know that they are.

One is a blatantly racist and historically offensive action, the other is a silent protest against perceived police brutality.

I believe that the owners would be far more empowered to prevent the former as compared to the latter.

I'm a veteran and I 100% agree with this.

There is a local mom-n-pop gas station near me and on his reader board out front he always has "100% Veteran Owned". Every time I pass it I just think, "Who gives a ****? Do you come to me to sell your house because I'm a veteran or because I know what the **** I'm doing and I'm damn good at my job?"

Well, to be honest I usually just think the first question, the second one is implied.

I suppose the contract could be very specific and say that the owners can prevent X but not Y, but I doubt it.

 

Either the owners can or cannot force their employees to adhere to a standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, scruffylookin said:

 

Employers have no right to force an employee to stand for the anthem. Period. And yeah I know the loophole they are trying to use is “you can stay in the locker room until it’s over” bs. 

 

 

As as long as we continue to spiral down as a country where more and more we act as if military “service” makes one more of a citizen than those who have not, the anthem and all the militarism that goes along with it now a days, has become political. 

 

 

First, and I said this earlier, most reports I have read agree the Nfl CAN make them stand.  The argument is if they SHOULD make them stand.  Do you have any legal argument that says otherwise?

 

Also, I to am curious why you put service in quotes.  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Why am I Mr. Pink?

Why am I Mr. Pink?

Posted
Posted

The only section that could potentially apply to anthem protests in the rules (not to be confused with the policies) comes under the section on player equipment, uniforms and player appearance. Rule 5, Section 4, Article 8 (found on page 23), deals with "personal messages." Here's how that rule begins:

"Throughout the period on game-day that a player is visible to the stadium and television audience (including in pregame warm-ups, in the bench area, and during postgame interviews in the locker room or on the field), players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office. Items to celebrate anniversaries or memorable events, or to honor or commemorate individuals, such as helmet decals, and arm bands and jersey patches on players’ uniforms, are prohibited unless approved in advance by the League office."

> my thoughts ... how broad do we define "illustration". Clearly kneeling isnt "in writing". The term "illustration", in context of the surrounding language, seems to mean a physical illustration to a jersey, helmet, arm band etc and that would rule out "kneeling" as being included under the term "illustration".

-----------------------------------------------

"during the national anthem, players must stand, face the flag, hold their helmet in their left hand and refrain from talking. "

 

While this language does not appear in the 2017 Official Playing Rules of the National Football League, which is available in its entirety online, it is a part of the game operations manual, which is distributed to all 32 teams, according to NFL spokesperson Brian McCarthy.

 

> my thoughts ... if this is not included in the 4 corners of the CBA, I dont see how it is binding. The CBA is a contract and agreement that was the result of a very detailed negotiation process. If the league didnt include it in the CBA, I dont think they can enforce it in terms of discipline or fines.

 

Including it in a "Game Operation Manual" written by the NFL is not binding on the NFLPA ... unless the CBA has a clause stating players must comply with the "Game Operation Manual" with fine or discipline laid out.

-----------------------

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/09/25/what-nfl-rule-book-actually-says-national-anthem/699886001/

 

My inconsequential thought right now ... NFL cant force players to stand with fines or discipline. They could ask them nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

I suppose the contract could be very specific and say that the owners can prevent X but not Y, but I doubt it.

 

Either the owners can or cannot force their employees to adhere to a standard.

I can imagine a contract saying prohibiting racist language and associations that are detrimental to the team's public image.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
mark327

mark327

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, clietas said:

Jo

 

I wonder what the guy in the Dak jersey said or did? He's quite pleased with something while the three people to his right are giving him the death stare.

And the middle finger ! ?

Woman wearing glasses upper left of pic

Edited by mark327
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
goskins10

goskins10

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

@VRIEL1 - Since you seem to want to have this conversion - I will respond here, in the proper place. 

 

Your statement: To get the fans back Mr. Snyder you should apologize to the fans for allowing the kneeling during the Anthem. Make a rule no kneeling during the Anthem, punishment will be either a 1 game benching or a fine and the money will go to the Veterans Administration or a non profit organization for survivors of police officers who have been killed.

 

While I was already not willing to spend money on the Redskins until Dan sells the team - it was not until the NFL temporarily banned kneeling that I decided  not to spend any money on the NFL as a whole - or at least as little as possible. CK did the most patriotic thing he could. It is wholly protected by the constitution.That police officers do a couragous job does not mean there are not major issues with racial inequality in how police deal with different people. People making it about the military are using that as an excuse to not look at the issue being protested. BTW: It was a veteran that convinced CK to kneel. 

 

Here is someone that articulates what's wrong with your position much better than I: 

 

 

 

 

Edited by goskins10
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
StillUnknown

StillUnknown

Posted
Posted

I really want to know exactly what evidence Kap had that made the NFL cut the check necessary for this outcome

 

my first thought was that Exhibit A would be Nathan Peterman's mere existence in the league

 

 

jokes aside, NFL trying to dump this on a friday of NBA's all-star weekend. they want this **** buried. NFL has no problem wasting dollars on things that ultimately don't matter (Deflategate), but they backed down on this one. Logical conclusion is that they believe the hit they taking in settling is smaller than the hit they would take having a judge rule they colluded against that man.

 

 

the most profitable league in american sports history tacitly admitting they colluded to deny that man work simply because he a made a broader point about a social injustice. this should not be swept away as minor business dealing by the league.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...