No more kneeling

[Halldan1]

NFL comes to anthem solution that erases kneelers

By Mark W. Sanchez

MORE ON:
NATIONAL ANTHEM PROTESTS

NFL considering turning anthem kneel into actual game penalty

Papa John's stock plunges as chain cuts pizza prices

Eric Reid joins Kaepernick's fight in NFL anthem-protest showdown

Colin Kaepernick's Seahawks tryout crushed amid kneeling confusion

If you don’t want to see an NFL player protesting during the national anthem, your wish will come true.

NFL owners reached a deal Wednesday that will keep those who want to protest during “The Star-Spangled Banner” off the field and out of the spotlight.

At the owners’ meetings in Atlanta, the group determined a new policy that states that if players are on the field during the anthem, they must stand. For those who wish to join Colin Kaepernick’s movement, they can stay in the locker room, a change from the mandate that players be on the field for the anthem.

“We believe today’s decision will keep our focus on the game and the extraordinary athletes who play it — and on our fans who enjoy it,” commissioner Roger Goodell said in a statement.

Previously, NFL regulations said players “should” stand for the anthem, an allowance that raged out of control as players protested police brutality and racism in the United States. President Trump launched attacks at the league and its players, and the NFL has scrambled for a solution that takes its protesters off the field ever since.

If a player does go on the field and protests during the anthem, the team would be fined by the league. The new policy also enables each club to have its own rules for discipline if a player is on the field and does “not stand and show respect for the flag and the Anthem.”

The unilaterally implemented rule was not welcomed by the Players’ Association, which was not consulted.

“The vote by NFL club CEOs today contradicts the statements made to our player leadership by Commissioner Roger Goodell and the Chairman of the NFL’s Management Council John Mara about the principles, values and patriotism of our League,” NFLPA said in a statement.

“Our union will review the new ‘policy’ and challenge any aspect of it that is inconsistent with the new collective bargaining agreement.”

 

[Section112]

Already players are protesting and the fact that the NFL did this without the Players Association is really interesting. My guess is the NFL will walk this back and look bad again.

I personally think its a travesty that it's come to this. I understand free speech and players rights. I also understand owners rights too. I'm a staunch supporter of our flag and military and will never truly understand this form of protest. My guess is they will keep biting the hand that feeds them - the fans. And the hypocrisy from the NFL and players will continue.

 

[Bobbie Solo]

Cowardly, disgraceful stance taken by the league, but to be expected.

 

[Halldan1]

This is a no win situation the NFL faces. Whatever they do there will be a strong backlash from the dissenters.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

[Halldan1]

Jets CEO Christopher Johnson says team won't fine players after NFL releases new national anthem policy
By Manish Mehta
| NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |

The NFL's new national anthem policy requiring players to stand or stay in the locker room won't prompt Jets CEO and Chairman Christopher Johnson to change his position to help players raise awareness on social issues.

"I plan to sit in the very near term with Coach Bowles and our players to discuss today's decision regarding the National Anthem," Johnson said in a statement released by the team. "As I have in the past, I will support our players wherever we land as a team. Our focus is not on imposing any club rules, fines or restrictions. Instead we will continue to work closely with our players to constructively advance social justice issues that are important to us. I remain extremely proud of how we demonstrated unity last season as well as our players' commitment to strengthening our communities."

Johnson has been at the forefront of his players' social concerns since taking over for his brother, Woody, who is the UK Ambassador for the Trump Administration. Christopher Johnson has navigated this unique path with aplomb, starting with the Jets' decision to show unity by linking arms during the national anthem amid peaceful protests last season. (Steelers owner Art Rooney told the Detroit Free-Press Tuesday that he thought that raising a fist and linking arms during the anthem would be deemed disrespectful).

Christopher Johnson (c.) says he will continue to stand with his Jets players as they raise awareness on social justice issues. (Al Bello/Getty Images)

Johnson consistently spent time with team leaders Demario Davis, Josh McCown and Kelvin Beachum last year to further social reforms.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/f...ine-players-anthem-protests-article-1.4005733

 

[HALL28]

Seems fair and accommodating for both sides. Does anyone really need to keep debating this issue?

 

[Halldan1]

I agree. IMO a great compromise. But you know when unions are involved everything is used as a bargaining chip and this issue will be no different.

 

[Merge]

Seems fair and accommodating for both sides. Does anyone really need to keep debating this issue?

I feel like doing nothing would have been better than what they did. "Sure you can protest as long as no one sees you" is really not a good look.

Dumb move by the NFL. Get the players involved and ask them what it will take for them to stand again.
This just amplifies the issue further.

 

[hallgrad80]

While I like the compromise this issue is not going to go away and players will go on the field and knell and we’ll be right back where we started from.

 

[Halldan1]

NFL players, coaches and owners react to national anthem policy

• ESPN

NFL owners have approved a national anthem policy that requires players to stand if they are on the field during the performance but gives them the option to remain in the locker room if they prefer, it was announced Wednesday.

Here is reaction from around the league:

Cleveland Browns quarterback Tyrod Taylor: "To make a decision that strong, you would hope that the players have input on it. But obviously not. So we have to deal with it as players, for good or a bad thing. At the end of the day they call the shots, make the rules, so that’s what we have to abide by. I think the main thing out of all of it is that each ballclub is having open communication with the players and ownership about the issues that are going on in the community and trying to change it. I know that (the Browns) and even the team that I came from in Buffalo, they have been proactive about the situation and trying to do things in the community. So I think that should be the focus now and hopefully it is moving forward."

Minnesota Vikings coach Mike Zimmer: "I was proud of my team last year. They stood for the anthem. I think it’s important that we stand for the anthem. I think it’s important that we represent our country the right way, the flag the right way. I probably shouldn’t get on a tangent, right? But a lot of people have died for that flag and that flag represents our country and what we stand for. I think that’s important. I’ll stop there."

Washington Redskins safety D.J. Swearinger safety: “I didn’t know about it. I don’t get into none of that. To each his own with that. You want to stand out, stand out; you want to stand in, stand in but everyone should have their right.”

New York Jets owner Christopher Johnson said to Newsday: “If somebody [on the Jets] takes a knee, that fine will be borne by the organization, by me, not the players. I never want to put restrictions on the speech of our players. Do I prefer that they stand? Of course. But I understand if they felt the need to protest. There are some big, complicated issues that we’re all struggling with, and our players are on the front lines."

Chicago Bears coach Matt Nagy: “We’ll talk it through. From what I was told there were no issues with this team last year, which is great. We’ll communicate it, we’ll talk it out and we’ll make sure we’re listening to everybody and trying to do the right thing as much as we can. I know it’s a touchy subject but I feel confident we’ll do it together.”

Denver Broncos defensive end Derek Wolfe: "That’s probably the best way to do it, the NBA has been doing it for 20 years and they haven’t had an issue, right? ... I’m going to stand for the national anthem, I think I’ve made that clear so whatever anybody else wants to do that’s their decision, they have a right to their opinion, they can do whatever they want."

Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shad Khan: "We all want the same thing -- respect for our nation and the flag, the focus on our game and a pledge to advancing social justice that will be absolute and stand the test of time. I believe we’re closer to that today, and I know that the Jacksonville Jaguars will be committed to those ideals this season and into the future."

Browns wide receiver Jarvis Landry: "I’ve always taken that time anyway to pray and I’ve always respected the flag so that really has nothing to do with me."

Redskins cornerback Josh Norman: “[President Donald Trump speaking out and more players protesting] happened … but I don’t know if that’s still going to take place or what’s going to happen. Who knows? I don’t.”

Bears outside linebacker Sam Acho: “I don't think anything really changes at this point. Right? Obviously, NFLPA goes back and says, 'OK, what do we do now? As a union, what do we do? How will we respond?' But, to be honest, I think a lot of players are happy about the conversations that are happening. So the protest served their purpose.”

Broncos center Matt Paradis: “I can speak for myself, I’ll be out there, standing for the anthem, when it comes to the team policy, that’s something as a team we’ll have to get into that. The union, the same thing, we’ll have to consult with them. ... The owners, they are the employers, so if they want to create a stipulation, we’ll take it from there.’’

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/...nd-owners-react-to-the-national-anthem-policy

 

[HallBall'n]

While I like the compromise this issue is not going to go away and players will go on the field and knell and we’ll be right back where we started from.

Doubtful.., this will end and I can go back to watching football again.

 

[SHUSource]

A solution in search of a problem. This league can't get out of its own way.

 

[SHUHitman]

Who cares. Not interested in giving attention to people who feel their place of business is a venue for voicing their personal opinions, righteous or otherwise anymore. I don't get paid what they do and I sure don't have the liberties in the workplace that they do. Not interested in siding with them and frankly it just turns me off to whatever point they are trying to make now. You feel like standing for the anthem runs counter to your feelings and beliefs? Good for you - wait in the lockeroom until it's over. Then go home and bitch about work to your family, like every other American does.

Next.

 

[HallLine69]

A protest isn't really a protest if it can't be seen. So I suspect this year we may see some other form of protest by some players who have strong feelings --which are 100% constitutionally protected-- finding other means to make their point.

Once again, it never ceases to amaze me how so many people who attack these protests are more interested in protecting the symbols of freedom than they are in protecting the freedom itself.

Meanwhile, Roger Goodell keeps up his reputation for usually finding a way to make a poor decision in a highly visible and sensitive situation. America's most overpaid empty suit.

 

[seton1996]

A protest isn't really a protest if it can't be seen. So I suspect this year we may see some other form of protest by some players who have strong feelings --which are 100% constitutionally protected-- finding other means to make their point.

Once again, it never ceases to amaze me how so many people who attack these protests are more interested in protecting the symbols of freedom than they are in protecting the freedom itself.

Meanwhile, Roger Goodell keeps up his reputation for usually finding a way to make a poor decision in a highly visible and sensitive situation. America's most overpaid empty suit.

Not sure protests at work are "constitutionally protected" as you say. Can my kids teachers get up in front of the class and "say a prayer", or refuse to teach because of something they have strong feelings for? Can I stand at my desk and refuse to work or follow some of my employers rules because of say "world hunger"?

I am all for freedoms and people protesting if they have strong feelings, but do it on your own time, not on your employers time.

 

[ed odowd]

Keep the players in the locker room while anthem playing grow a pair owners.

 

[SHUHitman]

A protest isn't really a protest if it can't be seen. So I suspect this year we may see some other form of protest by some players who have strong feelings --which are 100% constitutionally protected-- finding other means to make their point.

Once again, it never ceases to amaze me how so many people who attack these protests are more interested in protecting the symbols of freedom than they are in protecting the freedom itself.

Meanwhile, Roger Goodell keeps up his reputation for usually finding a way to make a poor decision in a highly visible and sensitive situation. America's most overpaid empty suit.

I'm less interested in protecting symbols and more interested in preserving, tact and decorum. People seem to think they have the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, to whoever they want. That's not how our society is supposed to work.

I don't support people bringing their personal affairs into the workplace, it's not professional. When these same athletes hold out of camp and don't do their job because they want more money, the response is always "nothing personal, it's just business. I have to look out for my best interests". Yet when these same guys want to make their employers and colleagues a part of their personal missions and are met with resistance, it's suddenly the opposite? Gamedays are your job, the stadium is your office, and the fans are your boss. Keep your feelings on societal issues to facebook, twitter, instagram, and your free time.

 

[HPPirate]

Agree with shu hitman 100%

 

[SHUSource]

Once again, it never ceases to amaze me how so many people who attack these protests are more interested in protecting the symbols of freedom than they are in protecting the freedom itself.

Typically, they're not. That's just the guise.

Some others are just confused by the way the protests has been redfined by those who aren't the actual protestors.

 

[HallLine69]

Not sure protests at work are "constitutionally protected" as you say. Can my kids teachers get up in front of the class and "say a prayer", or refuse to teach because of something they have strong feelings for? Can I stand at my desk and refuse to work or follow some of my employers rules because of say "world hunger"?

I am all for freedoms and people protesting if they have strong feelings, but do it on your own time, not on your employers time.

It is definitely constitutionally protected. Even the burning of an American flag has been ruled upon by the Supreme Court as a protected act. (Texas vs. Johnson 1989)

 

[HALL85]

No one is saying they can’t continue to protest. Just recognize the consequences of your actions.

 

[SHUHitman]

No one is saying they can’t continue to protest. Just recognize the consequences of your actions.

That would require accountability for ones actions, which is becoming increasingly rare in society. Everybody wants to do what they please, free from consequence and expect everyone to agree. Very eaay to do what you feel like and say what you want when there are no consequences.

 

[hallgrad80]

That would require accountability for ones actions, which is becoming increasingly rare in society. Everybody wants to do what they please, free from consequence and expect everyone to agree. Very eaay to do what you feel like and say what you want when there are no consequences.

It is definitely constitutionally protected. Even the burning of an American flag has been ruled upon by the Supreme Court as a protected act. (Texas vs. Johnson 1989)

Protests in the private sector workplace are not constitutionally protected .

 

[Halldan1]

NFL’s gutless anthem decision doesn’t solve anything


By Mike Vaccaro

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell announces the league's new policy requiring players to stand for the national anthem or remain in the locker room during its playing.AP

The most interesting aspect of the national-anthem controversy that enveloped the NFL last season was this: Both sides had an excellent argument in the debate.

There were the players who chose to kneel during the playing of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” who were absolutely correct in believing that action would draw maximum attention to their societal complaints. They were exercising their basic right of free speech. Rarely do we see it on such public display.

And there were those who couldn’t abide by this visible open disrespect of the anthem, of the flag, of the men and women who fought and died under its colors. This, too, was the First Amendment vigorously at work: the freedom to disagree, the freedom to debate, the freedom to act accordingly, both sides of the issue.

The NFL, of course, couldn’t abide by this. The smartest thing the league could have done in addressing this issue was to leave it unaddressed. Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from consequence, after all: It is not mutually exclusive to defend a player’s right to kneel and also an owner’s right to fire said player.

Or fans’ right to tune that all out and find alternate ways to spend their Sunday afternoons, if that’s how a fan chooses to respond.

SEE ALSO
NFL comes to anthem solution that erases kneelers

Instead, spooked by declining TV ratings and awkward PR and the yet-undetermined impact the anthem affair had directly on any of that, the NFL has enacted a new policy that nobody seemed to be clamoring for and may well have the magical effect of alienating both sides. Players are now required to stand for the anthem but are given the out to stay in the locker room if they choose to.

This is a classic half-measure, designed to please everyone, destined to please no one.

If the NFL really wanted to send a message to the patriotic bloc that it believes fled the sport because of the anthem protests, then it should have gone all the way: Make standing mandatory. Make every player accountable. It’s their league, their rules, they can make whatever policy they want, and if a player has a problem with that he can suffer the penalty.

Or, if it wanted to stand astride the players who make it a viable operation in the first place, wanted to defend their right to disobey, then keep things as they were and let the court of public opinion rule the day.

But either choice would have taken a slice more courage than the NFL ever chooses to utilize, and it would have shown a level of fortitude and conviction that has never exactly appeared on Roger Goodell’s résumé. This is a league that spends so much of its time running scared when it isn’t simply closing its eyes and ears to real problems. It isn’t like this should be a surprising choice.

It’s just a wrong-headed one. Which, lately, is what the NFL seems to do best.

 

[Halldan1]

Legal experts throw flag on NFL's new policy forcing players to stand during national anthem

By LEONARD GREENE
| NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |

The NFL fumbled the ball with its new kneeling policy, according to a pair of legal experts.

While the new decree is not quite a blitz on the First Amendment, the rules leave the popular notion of free speech bloodied and bruised, they said.

"The public/private line gets blurred when the President of the United States starts to demand or suggest that bosses take certain action against protests from their workers," said Ron Kuby, a civil rights attorney.

"In the broader context of what we consider freedom of speech, this is an appalling capitulation of bullying by the worst type of people."

The league's new policy to bar players from kneeling during the national anthem is a brutal sack on free speech, legal experts say. (Ezra Shaw/Getty Images)

Eight months after President Trump blasted kneeling players and urged owners to "get that son of a bitch off the field," the NFL on Wednesday approved a new national anthem policy that requires players and personnel to stand if they are on the field during the playing of the anthem.

Players who kneel or sit during the song will be subject to a fine.

But California-based attorney Ron Sokol, who has written extensively about the First Amendment, was quick to throw a flag on the new policy.

Players who kneel or sit during the song could be slapped with a fine. (Mitchell Leff/Getty Images)

"I'm not sure they have authority," Sokol said. "If they do, I'm not sure that authority would be upheld."

Sokol said a legal challenge might force the NFL to draw the line on the issue.

"What if a fan inadvertently forgets to remove his cap during the national anthem?" Sokol said. "Is he going to get thrown out of the game?"

The NFL may not have the authority to force players to stand during the national anthem, says California-based attorney Ron Sokol. (Alex Brandon/AP)

Kuby said a court might view the new policy as a political punishment for protest activity.

But no rule, he said, will keep players from getting their message out.

"The unintended irony of this is that it invites and compels creative protest activity that falls outside the restriction," Kuby said.

"People will find dozens of creative ways to circumvent this restriction and have their voices heard, or not heard. It was, after all, a silent protest."

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/f...-new-national-anthem-policy-article-1.4006231

 

[seton1996]

It is definitely constitutionally protected. Even the burning of an American flag has been ruled upon by the Supreme Court as a protected act. (Texas vs. Johnson 1989)

Protests and flag burning are protected, but not at your workplace.

 

[HallLine69]

Protests and flag burning are protected, but not at your workplace.

I stand corrected.

 

[SHUTAPS76]

Cowardly, disgraceful stance taken by the league, but to be expected.

Agreed
The kneeling was the only reason to watch concussion ball

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

They made this move because of money. If holding up a confederate flag or holding up a black live matter sign made the league money they would look the other way. Once the inflow of money slows down they are going to do something. You can agree or disagree with what they did, but the bottom line is the NFL is only acting because of one thing, which is money. The protests definitely hurt the bottom line and that's all the owners and league office really care about. Ask any owner would he rather his franchise double in value or win 10 straight Super Bowls and have the same value, he will take the doubling in value every time.

 

[hallgrad80]

Professional sports are a business and the purpose of any business is to make money and to expect the owners who have invested the capital necessary to buy a sports franchise to not make decisions that enhance their return is naive. When the value of their investment is threatened they take steps to minimize that threat and while many may not like the action they take it was predictable.

 

[Merge]

They made this move because of money.

I don’t disagree, but they are throwing gasonline on a fire that barely a flame at this point.

Just a really, really poor decision here.
It’s May. There is so much time before the season... even enough to work with the players to find an actual solution.

 

[Hall-line-forever]

Professional sports are a business and the purpose of any business is to make money and to expect the owners who have invested the capital necessary to buy a sports franchise to not make decisions that enhance their return is naive. When the value of their investment is threatened they take steps to minimize that threat and while many may not like the action they take it was predictable.

Amen! If they don't like the flag, they can start their own flag-less league. Nobody would go except Bernie Sanders who would then try to get a government grant to support it.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

I don’t disagree, but they are throwing gasonline on a fire that barely a flame at this point.

Just a really, really poor decision here.
It’s May. There is so much time before the season... even enough to work with the players to find an actual solution.

That's debatable. People decide to buy tickets now. The longer they don't have a solution the more damage can be done. Granted ticket sales are small compared to tv revenue, but you have to have an idea by now whether this is capable of being resolved at the table. The question is there a reasonable solution when they put the figures in front of the players that say you get X percentage of all revenues, do you want to continue this while revenues are hurting, # of viewers are going down, we have to offer free advertisements to corporations because guaranteed them certain ratings, etc.

 

[HALL85]

They made this move because of money. If holding up a confederate flag or holding up a black live matter sign made the league money they would look the other way. Once the inflow of money slows down they are going to do something. You can agree or disagree with what they did, but the bottom line is the NFL is only acting because of one thing, which is money. The protests definitely hurt the bottom line and that's all the owners and league office really care about. Ask any owner would he rather his franchise double in value or win 10 straight Super Bowls and have the same value, he will take the doubling in value every time.

Exactly...if you were the owner of an NFL team, and it was your money, what would you do? I'm not sure what a 9% reduction in viewership translates to, or what they lost in souvenir revenue, no-shows and the ancillary sales, but it must have been material. And let's face it...if we were in that position, we'd protect our business as well.

 

[hallgrad80]

That's debatable. People decide to buy tickets now. The longer they don't have a solution the more damage can be done. Granted ticket sales are small compared to tv revenue, but you have to have an idea by now whether this is capable of being resolved at the table. The question is there a reasonable solution when they put the figures in front of the players that say you get X percentage of all revenues, do you want to continue this while revenues are hurting, # of viewers are going down, we have to offer free advertisements to corporations because guaranteed them certain ratings, etc.

The danger to the franchises is that tv viewership will decline and since tv revenues , as you point out, are critical to the bottom line they are going to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent that from happening and when you accept the fact that tv ratings declined 9.7% from last season you can see why trying to find an answer to the flag protests became a priority target.

 

[BayonneRay]

Protests and flag burning are protected, but not at your workplace.

One wonders in the private sector that the pledge of allegiance and the national anthem is respected during the opening of each day. Each business, firms and corporation should pledge their allegiance to this country before their beginning of their day. One wonders if Wall Street and other financial institution do this. You would hope that these corporations would be doing what they do, to benefit the USA and not others.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

One wonders in the private sector that the pledge of allegiance and the national anthem is respected during the opening of each day. Each business, firms and corporation should pledge their allegiance to this country before their beginning of their day. One wonders if Wall Street and other financial institution do this. You would hope that these corporations would be doing what they do, to benefit the USA and not others.

That's way off base. The bottom line is the boss dictates policy. We all have a first amendment right to dress how we want. Go get a job at Abercrombie, no matter how much it is your right to dress how you want, it's their policy to work there you have to dress in Abercrombie clothes. End of discussion. You don't want to follow their policy go work some place else. Every NFL player has the right to go work elsewhere. Carolina Panthers just sold for 2.3 billion dollars. Go get 230 players to put up 10 million each and buy a franchise. If they buy more and more franchises they will have more control. If the bottom line continues to go down and they don't mind losing money to make their political stance that's their right. But the current owners care about their investment. And they'll do what they think is necessary to protect it.

 

[BayonneRay]

That's way off base. The bottom line is the boss dictates policy. We all have a first amendment right to dress how we want. Go get a job at Abercrombie, no matter how much it is your right to dress how you want, it's their policy to work there you have to dress in Abercrombie clothes. End of discussion. You don't want to follow their policy go work some place else. Every NFL player has the right to go work elsewhere. Carolina Panthers just sold for 2.3 billion dollars. Go get 230 players to put up 10 million each and buy a franchise. If they buy more and more franchises they will have more control. If the bottom line continues to go down and they don't mind losing money to make their political stance that's their right. But the current owners care about their investment. And they'll do what they think is necessary to protect it.

Wow! You have really miss the point. So if you dress appropriately you don't have to pledge allegiance to the this country . Then why do football players and other athletes owned by private owners and corporations be held to different standard. As you noted these athletes then owe their soul to the PRIVATE ownership not to the country. The hyprocisy now is these athletes should be punished for their expression but others working in the private sector do not have to pledge their patriotism every day.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Wow! You have really miss the point. So if you dress appropriately you don't have to pledge allegiance to the this country . Then why do football players and other athletes owned by private owners and corporations be held to different standard. As you noted these athletes then owe their soul to the PRIVATE ownership not to the country. The hyprocisy now is these athletes should be punished for their expression but others working in the private sector do not have to pledge their patriotism every day.

And when ownership and league rules say we’re playing the national anthem and this is how you will conduct yourself, do it or go elsewhere. If a firm on Wall Street decides to play the anthem daily and has a policy and employees don’t follow it, they should go elsewhere or be fined or fired. However those owners on Wall Street have the right not to play the anthem daily too. That’s their choice. But whatever the rule is that’s the rule. i would say the same thing about dress code rules on Wall Street, if you don’t want to follow it go elsewhere. Bottom line is the league and owners decided they are playing the anthem. That’s their choice in their private sector. End of discussion.

 

[SHUSource]

Amen! If they don't like the flag, they can start their own flag-less league. Nobody would go except Bernie Sanders who would then try to get a government grant to support it.

So, if I read this correctly, you think this has something to do with animus toward "the flag?"

Maybe you should sit this one out.