New NFL Policy requires all Players and Personel on field to stand for National Anthem...

[fungchen3]

I don't understand the U2 analogy; it's not like they "report" to anyone or have a boss. So they are free to voice whatever opinions they want in their show; whatever benefit (or harm) they cause, it's just to their own brand.

This is true. To me, it comes down to setting expectations. I'm not a big U2 guy, so I'm not familiar with the subject matter of their shows. If their fan base knows they will dedicate a portion of their show to talk about world hunger, etc... and the fans still pay and go support them, that's great. More power to them. I have more of a problem with the impromptu, "let me just cram my agenda down your throat real quick" when I have your attention. That, I can't stand. This happens during all of these "award shows" where celebrities get up and use that platform to try and convince the masses who to vote for, or why they should protest, etc. I mean, give me a break lol. Honestly, I'd rather them get up there and flat-out say, "to all the people, thanks for spending your hard-earned money making us rich." At least it would be the proper forum for that type of disrespect.

I'm not also sure players have free reign on social media, especially if they are identified with their team on a platform.

I think to a certain extent they do. But I'm sure if they cross the line, the team (if not the agent) would be like, "wtf are you doing?!"

I do think it will all come down to collective bargaining...

Definitely. At the end of the day, both sides want to make money. Something will be worked out. Hopefully a happy medium. At the end of the day though, if something an athlete does is offensive to the service members who have put their lives on the line so those same athletes can make millions of dollars in a fairly safe county, someone needs to ask: "Wait, isn't there another way we can accomplish our goal without offending the military?" I mean, is that an unreasonable request?

Very interesting views, and for the most part, well articulated and respectful discussion.

As it always should be. Open, respectful discussion.

[rataylor22]

Kneeling is not against the flag code? Doesn't the flag code expressly state that one should stand at attention?

Conduct during a rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed:

(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;

(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and

(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and

(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

The key word here is "should," according to legal experts, which stops short of "shall" or "must."

The passage is part of the larger U.S Flag Code, which prescribes American flag and National Anthem etiquette. However, as a 2007 report to Congress noted, the code "does not prescribe any penalties for non-compliance" and "functions simply as a guide to be voluntarily followed by civilians and civilian groups."

In other words, it's not against the law to sit out the National Anthem, however controversial it might be.

[Godin]

There were 258 black people killed by police in 2016. 39 were unarmed. This is totally a policing issue. Regular Americans are not out there killing black men for no reason and visa versa. It is about poor police training. It is not an easy career. Better screening and psychological testing when hiring along with supplying police with a better understanding of the population that they are patroling is important. Policing has come a long way from the days when you could get hired on because your uncle was on the force, but is still a long ways from perfection.

Crime has evolved as has policing, but detective work and technology doesn't prevent altercations from escalating, training however does. Having cameras on police officers and in their vehicles is a great tool for both the public and the officer. They hold everyone accountable and tell the truth.

Better police training is the answer here. Not all of those 258 killing were preventable but the ones that were, could be prevented in the future.

[Godin]

Conduct during a rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed:

(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;

(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and

(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and

(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

The key word here is "should," according to legal experts, which stops short of "shall" or "must."

The passage is part of the larger U.S Flag Code, which prescribes American flag and National Anthem etiquette. However, as a 2007 report to Congress noted, the code "does not prescribe any penalties for non-compliance" and "functions simply as a guide to be voluntarily followed by civilians and civilian groups."

In other words, it's not against the law to sit out the National Anthem, however controversial it might be.

I'm sure everyone knows this. If it was against the law, the players would have been arrested.

[fungchen3]

Players who are kneeling are not doing it specifically because they themselves are oppressed, they are using their platform to speak up for a segment of society that is.

Like I said, I happen to agree with the players' motivation. Or at least what they're "hoping" to accomplish. But how is kneeling during the anthem "their platform?" Do they own the stadiums? Do they own the TV networks? Do they own the teams? They do, however, own their own social media accounts, their own personal brand, and their right to free speech. So why don't they organize their own rallies, conventions, think tanks, press conferences, charity events, etc? Let's be honest, what they are doing has become a polarizing side show, albeit with good intentions. But the thing they are supposedly fighting for has become lost in the narrative.

Its no different than an actor championing a charity cause, or a different social issue. Most people who have a large societal reach are not directly affected by the cause they are spearheading, they're using their reach to affect change about an issue they are passionate about. This is a shockingly simple concept that seems to be missed.

Actors championing a cause is great. Using their social media or an audience they cultivate and organize to focus on that cause is wonderful. It's not a simple concept that's missed. Common people start foundations for loved ones who have passed, homeless people, bullying, etc. all the time. Good people generally like to do good. Everyone has passions. But even if my best friend in work came in every single day and brought up, "hey, let's go rescue dogs this weekend" after a while, people would be like, "Dude, enough. We get it, now you're annoying." lol.

"If I did this at my job...." 1) Your job is not like being a professional athlete and people need to stop thinking that. 2) Do you work for a union? I'd wager the majority of people in this thread don't. Fun fact, in union settings stuff like this has to be collectively bargained. Unions also exist to stop unfair hiring practices. Since the players aren't doing anything against the rules, the protests can't be held against them, that is the whole point of the union.

This is true, very valid point here. I'm not suggesting collective bargaining isn't the answer, or what the legal ramifications are. I'm saying, this whole thing is... well... "a thing" because the kneeling has angered enough people to the point they have stopped attending games, spending money on the NFL, tuning in on TV, or they have complained. To pretend this isn't bad for business is silly - that's why it will be collectively bargained.

And the most amazing part of all of this: Most people who want restrictions enforced on the 1st Amendment are the same group of people that vehemently fight any type of restriction on the 2nd Amendment. It's the perfect encapsulation of irony. It generally stems from such theories as "disrespecting the anthem and flag" or "disrespecting the military", which really is incredible because these messages stem from the type of people that wear the flag as part of their clothing ensemble. Of note, kneeling for the anthem is not against the specific flag and anthem code, but wearing the flag or a portion there-in is against the flag code. In terms of disrespecting the military, it's the perfect chefs kiss to ascertain that kneeling for an anthem (IE, a right the military fights to protect) is MORE disrespectful to the military than watching military fight and die to protect a right in foreign countries only for them to turn around and see the same right restricted in their home country.

I think saying, "people want restrictions on the 1st Amendment..." isn't fair nor accurate. I believe it's a convenient line to just toss out there without much meat. I mean, if people were against the 1st Amendment, they would insist Kaepernick couldn't call a press conference, speak in public, or use his Twitter account to voice his opinion. Unless I'm missing something, I don't believe anyone reasonable has suggested that.

And, I think we need to really take a step back and consider a few things...

1. Most people these days, at least civil ones, do not think it's fair that anyone is oppressed. I honestly believe that.

2. How does kneeling during the anthem improve anything? Honestly? I mean, the spin is, "awareness" but the only thing people are aware of is that it has become a circus covered on ESPN and has morphed into an "NFL thing where players hate the country." The take away has become, "Look, these selfish football players are disrespecting the anthem again." There's a decent segment of people who have no clue "why" they are doing it. Wouldn't a more effective statement be something like the NFL players - using their own resources - partnering with entertainers to throw a massive concert tour in various major cities to raise awareness? The platform would be huge, expectations would be set, and everyone there will be in support of the cause. It would generate an enormous amount of publicity and awareness. There could be speeches, including ones from police who strive to be better and hold their forces accountable, etc. Black people, white people, all different races, all together for a common cause. Now that could really move the needle. It's all about expectations and the forum.

3. To the average person, there is a major disconnect between "kneeling during the anthem" and "helping to raise awareness for oppression." Throughout our entire lives, the National Anthem (just like the American flag) has been a symbol of patriotism, love of country, and respect for those who defend our country and protect us. We always stand and honor; pay respect. It's not to support any one party, or opinion, or to oppress someone different. It's to say we're proud to be American and love our country. Many people feel that kneeling during the Anthem is an overall expression of hate towards the country. And why shouldn't people think that's disrespectful? If you're a war veteran with PTSD or lost limbs and you're trying to enjoy your Sunday watching a football game, how would you feel about seeing multi-million dollar athletes kneeling during the anthem? It's like they're saying, "this country sucks."

In the proper forum, these same athletes and celebrities can do so much good, IMO. But that takes work, man hours, resources. Some do go the extra mile and many do not. They would rather just "make a spectacle" to draw attention - knowing millions are watching - even if the forum isn't the proper one, and they are dividing people in the process. I mean, if the end goal is to UNITE and CHANGE, how is DIVIDING people a good thing? In this forum, these guys come off as spoiled brats who are looking for attention. And they're doing it during a time when the country is looking to escape from every day problems - football Sunday.

It's not what you say, it's where and when you say it.

[rataylor22]

Gonna shorten these so it's not a massive post, but keep them as reference points.

Like I said, I happen to agree with the players' motivation.....So why don't they organize their own rallies, conventions, think tanks, press conferences, charity events, etc?

They're independent contractors unionized and organized into a team. Every time they're viewed in public that is their platform. And they are doing those things, all the time.

Actors championing a cause is great....

I'm sure all the oppressed minorities continually getting killed are thrilled to hear that their problem is "annoying". It's a major issue in the US and not much has been done to solve it. "Well we tried, but now it's getting annoying" doesn't really fly.

This is true, very valid point here....

The Carolina Panthers just sold for $2.2 billion in cash. The NFL draft increased TV ratings by 25% and outdrew the SCF in viewership. The NFL reported record profits. The "bad for business" idea simply doesn't hold up if you look at it critically.

1. Most people these days, at least civil ones, do not think it's fair that anyone is oppressed. I honestly believe that.

That's optimistic, but I don't agree. It's really really easy to find so much racism in America, everywhere. Unless you're saying upwards of 25% of the American population isn't "civil", there's not really a way to justify this opinion.

2. How does kneeling during the anthem improve anything....

Nobody was talking about black inequality 2 years ago prior to this. At least not like it's talked about now. Sure there's still lots of people with their head buried in the sand, but there's far more awareness about the issue now and that stems directly from kneeling. As for your other suggestions, athletes are doing those type of things all the time.

3. To the average person, there is a major disconnect between....

I would imagine a sizable portion of the population, including many of the athletes do think "this country sucks". Honestly, it does kinda suck right now. What they're doing is trying to make it much better, but I wouldn't doubt they do think America sucks and they aren't proud of America. They're trying to make America something to be proud of again. The idea that America is the "greatest country in the world" is a load of shit.

looking to escape from every day problems - football Sunday.

And this is the real problem. People are trying to escape and ignore this problem every day. Honestly it's pretty easy to do if you want to. You have to bring it to a platform where people can't escape it, to bring awareness and to deal with it. It's pretty easy to ignore the issue every day at your 9-5 job and in your cocoon of friends and family if you want to. It's 2018. Stick to sports doesn't work, and it's an embarrassing notion. Change happens when people are forced to deal with issues, not when those issues are only presented in easy to ignore forums. Kneeling for the anthem is no different then the NHL/NFL doing cancer awareness months, people just don't look at it the same way because they don't want to. Nobody has a problem with NFL teams wearing pink accents for a month.

[Wonko]

Rataylor has really illuminated the core of almost every side of this thorny issue in my opinion. Incredibly well thought out and well written responses. Nicely done sir.

[fungchen3]

Well, ra, we obviously have completely different perspectives on this one, and that's OK. Not on injustice, inequality, racism, bigotry, abuse of power, or hatred - I'm strictly talking about the "kneeling" thing. And I really don't think there's a clear "right" or "wrong" answer or solution among each of our suggestions. If it were that easy, life would be perfect. It's all about perspective, no? All I can say is: theater, media polarization, narrative, kneeling, etc. are just what they are. Holding a door open for someone an extra second, instead of just letting it close, could do more for social relations than these "acts" that end up talking points on an ESPN news desk. Talking to someone "different" than you and enjoying their company improves things - not being conditioned to "dislike someone" because they feel differently about certain subjects. That's my biggest problem with all of this - the sensational media storm, the celebrity "political endorsements", the "if you voted for X, I can't like you", the kneeling, the "hate President Obama/Trump because I said so", the "if you don't agree with me, you're a racist, sexist or bigot" stuff that has been shoved down our throats ad nauseam for the last 10 years. All of it is divisive and I can't stand it. It's fighting for one thing and acting the exact opposite in the process. All silly to me.

I mean come on, we obviously disagree on certain things here, but if the opportunity ever presented itself, I'd love to kick back a few beers with you, talk some hockey, get to know you, etc. We probably agree on many things and disagree on many things. Nothing wrong with that.

[Wonko]

Steve Kerr makes some interesting points.

https://www.si.com/nba/2018/05/24/st...policy-idiotic

[als_revenge]

Nobody was talking about black inequality 2 years ago prior to this.

While I think your post is full post is very insightful and well thought out, the one thing that jumped out at me is the above statement. The Black Lives Matter movement has been active for awhile, and was certainly raising awareness on all kinds of inequality issues.

[doulos]

Our family loves to discuss issues like this at the dinner table with our kids. We like to see what they think. It gives us some good chatter while we sit and eat every night. We try and lay out both sides of the argument, here their thoughts, and provide some counterpoints to their thoughts to generate more discussion. It's really a fun part of our night.

The 13 year old was mad at the teams and thought that it seems overboard to try and force players (I know, it's not forcing them since they have the option to stay off the field, but those were her words) to stand, and even though she understands that they are employees, she also thought that it was important to have happy employees so that they would give their best performance on the field. Wasn't sure what the best way to "fix" the issue was though.

The 10 year old looked at us, took a bite of food, and said he really didn't care. I probably line up more with him!

[Rylant]

According to ESPN, they didn’t even have an official vote for this. This quote is from the article, with the bold being my emphasis.

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.

Ya, that seems legit...

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...em-policy-vote

Rylant

[Rylant]

Our family loves to discuss issues like this at the dinner table with our kids. We like to see what they think. It gives us some good chatter while we sit and eat every night. We try and lay out both sides of the argument, here their thoughts, and provide some counterpoints to their thoughts to generate more discussion. It's really a fun part of our night.

The 13 year old was mad at the teams and thought that it seems overboard to try and force players (I know, it's not forcing them since they have the option to stay off the field, but those were her words) to stand, and even though she understands that they are employees, she also thought that it was important to have happy employees so that they would give their best performance on the field. Wasn't sure what the best way to "fix" the issue was though.

The 10 year old looked at us, took a bite of food, and said he really didn't care. I probably line up more with him!

Love the kids involvement. You can always expect this kind of honesty from children and they can sometimes provide an ey-opening perspective to adults. Great stuff.

Rylant

[doulos]

I like your 10 year old's attitude. Don't sweat the small stuff. And it's all small stuff.

Just don't ask him about the scourge of parents limiting screen time in the home. Monsters.

[Rylant]

"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."

I should also mention that, with the exception of a couple who abstained completely, the informal vote was unanimous (according to Goodell).

In other words, the lack of a formal vote (although atypical) means pretty much nothing.
Other than it's creating controversy for the sake of controversy.
It's creating gasping moments when there is no reason to gasp.

Everyone take a drink; you are being ridiculous.

The NFL very much wanted this to happen, which is why they very intentionally did not take a vote. This type of thing tends to require a formal vote and the fact that the NFL was worried about the outcome and did not ask for a formal vote, makes it controversial. The fact that owners abstained completely because they wanted to get the player's input first, hardly makes this "Unanimous".

We all understand that YOU don't think there is a reason to gasp, which is completely fine. However, the fact that there are many passionate opposing views, MAKES THIS CONTROVERSIAL. It's not creating controversy for the sake of "creating controversy". According to dictionary.com, controversy means : disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated. The fact that this hits the textbook definition of "controversy", makes it controversial, regardless of whether or not you think it should be.

Rylant