Difference being the NFL was/is clearly wrong, legally, in both of those cases. Not even the best lawyer could win in a situation like that. With this situation though, the law is currently on the NFL's side since there is already a precedent for a "you must stand for the anthem" rule for professional athletes in the NBA that has never been successfully challenged. The players' union would have a really tough time fighting this in court and would likely lose.
YOU'RE FIRED!
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
Difference being the NFL was/is clearly wrong, legally, in both of those cases. Not even the best lawyer could win in a situation like that. With this situation though, the law is currently on the NFL's side since there is already a precedent for a "you must stand for the anthem" rule for professional athletes in the NBA that has never been successfully challenged. The players' union would have a really tough time fighting this in court and would likely lose.
Zkribbler
Deity
The players don't work for the league. They work for the owners.
I've already quoted and analyzed the relevant rule. It says "should," not "must."
The possible penalties include loss of draft picks, & so this rule does not apply to the players.
Also:
Kneeling is a sign of respect.
I do agree it would be better for this division to end, so because everyone [presumably] is against police brutality and the shooting of unarmed blanks, the League should be encouraging everyone to kneel.
That's a pretty weak argument and also demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about how professional sports leagues work. The owners have to ensure everyone in their organization is following the league rules or their team cannot participate in the league. So while the players may not work directly for the league, they are still bound by the rules set forth by the league. It is also a part of every NFL player's contract that they will abide by all rules and regulations set forth by the league. So unless you are going to argue that those contracts are somehow illegal (hint: they aren't), the players are legally bound to follow the rules of the NFL the moment they put their signature on their contract.
Okay, you are giving yourself a little too much credit there. You didn't analyze it, you just repeated the analysis others in the media have already done. I know this because your analysis is almost exactly like what I've been seeing in articles defending the protests.
Plus, there is a very significant chance that the NFL is going to change that "should" to a "must" at their meeting next week. Once they do, the players won't have a leg to stand on (no pun intended) and the protests will die off pretty quick. Especially when a few adventurous players still try to do it and get slapped with a suspension and fine.
It also includes suspensions and fines, which are penalties that are given to players. So yes, the rule does apply to players as well as teams as a whole. You are just trying to say it doesn't because you want the NFL to be powerless to stop the players. But again, this whole argument will be pointless in a week or so when the NFL comes out with a nice, clear, concise new rule that says players must stand and will be penalized if they do not.
Irrelevant. The sponsors want the protests to stop, so the NFL is now going to do everything in its power to make them stop and get those players standing for the anthem again. Face it, the players lost this one. Goodell was the players' biggest ally in all this and he was cowed into submission pretty quick by the sponsors. It only took what, four weeks into the season for him to cave? And with Jones, the most influential owner in the league, coming out strongly against the protests it won't be long before any owners that are sympathetic to the players are cowed into submission as well.
TL;DR: What the sponsors want, the sponsors get, and they want the players to stand.
Zkribbler
Deity
I do recall fines being mentioned, but I don't recall suspensions being mentioned. Do you have a link?
I do recall there is no mention of whom the rule apples to, but IMHO, a fair reading of it, implies it's a rule to govern teams.
...because in America, peaceful political protests are a bad thing,
while police brutality and the shooting of unarmed minorities are to be encouraged whenever possible.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Freest country in the world baby, yeah!
America, land of the free, where we will constantly nag you how important our freedom of speech is, unless of course our sponsors object, then we'll cave in faster than a mine in Chili.
Another reminder that the employment relationship is, as ever, the single biggest impediment to actual free speech in developed countries.
And are paying into an uncapped compensation thing after trying to suppress head trauma findings for years
And are paying into an uncapped compensation thing after trying to suppress head trauma findings for years
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Oh for frog's sake.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/08/politics/vice-president-mike-pence-nfl-protest/index.html
edit:
Donald Trump Jr., the President's eldest son, tweeted his support for Pence's decision.
"Amen. After almost a decade it's great to have leaders who have pride in our country again," he wrote.
There isn't enough vomit in the world.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/08/politics/vice-president-mike-pence-nfl-protest/index.html
edit:
Donald Trump Jr., the President's eldest son, tweeted his support for Pence's decision.
"Amen. After almost a decade it's great to have leaders who have pride in our country again," he wrote.
There isn't enough vomit in the world.
stinkubus
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2016
- Messages
- 1,845
What are you talking about? The NBAs practices will be moot since the NFL player's have a union contract. Roger Godell has already made public statements supporting protesting players, and the current NFL CBA makes him judge, jury, and executioner. If a player were suspended for kneeling during the anthem all they need to do is show up in court and play the tape of Godell giving it his blessing. The NFL won't have a leg to stand on until the next CBA.
No. Once again you are trying to interpret mandatory language where suggestive language was used. The memo says:
Again, (as you finally seem to be acknowledging albeit in a self-serving wayRoger Goodell memo said:
)... The NFL is a billion dollar organization... this memo was obviously vetted by lawyers. The use of the word "should" rather than "must" was intentional. So your conclusion that Goodell said the players "are to" be on the field is flat out wrong... again.
The players should give this one up, since they've already lost it.
Trump won. He hijacked it to disrespect for the flag. People are already forgetting that its a protest of police brutality.
So it's a lose lose. Tell the commish that they'll stand but the commish has to make a statement against police brutality and the treatment of blacks in general.
Trump won. He hijacked it to disrespect for the flag. People are already forgetting that its a protest of police brutality.
So it's a lose lose. Tell the commish that they'll stand but the commish has to make a statement against police brutality and the treatment of blacks in general.
Again, no sorry that is incorrect. Once again you are just seeing what you want to see, but this statement does not contradict what I have said at all. The phrase "There is latitude for some retribution for protests" is not remotely the same as "Players can be punished for not standing". As I have already said, I agree 100% that under the Ops Manual, "there is latitude for some retribution for protests". For example, as I already said, the Steelers refusal to come on the field for the anthem is absolutely punishable under the plain language of the Ops Manual. So as you can see, there is no disagreement between me and the NFL lawyers as you put it... speaking of which...
Oh! So NOW, when you think it helps your argument, you recognize that the NFL would obviously be acting in consultation with lawyers? When I pointed this out to you previously and it squarely refuted your argument, you called it "semantics" and stated that "this manual clearly wasn't written by lawyers" and "that's why people hate lawyers because you focus on one word" and similar
. But now when it seems to help your argument, its so clear to you that the NFL's lawyers would be all over this?... whateves.As I've demonstrated, there is no disagreement between me and the NFL lawyers, but even if there was, the bottom line is it doesn't matter because that's what Courts are for... You think that the NFLPA (and individual players) don't have the same type of "good at their jobs" lawyers that the NFL does? Or did you forget about that?
On another note, whether to bench or play a player is completely up to the coach and/or GM and/or owner. So theoretically, Jones's threat to bench protesters could be carried out, however this raises a more important issue. Earlier in this debate, you scoffed at the idea that this was a free speech issue, in-part because you rejected the notion that the players jobs were at stake. But now, you can clearly see I hope, that their jobs are being threatened, under the influence of and at the behest of the head of the government, as a consequence of exercising their rights.
So again... I ask... where are all the Free-speech heroes now to speak up in favor of the players as they did for the Klan?
Last edited:
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
Dak Prescott ought to kneel for the anthem and see if Jerry Jones really means it. The players have way more power than they realize; history has shown time and time again that they are irreplaceable. If ever there was a human being who needs to know his place, it's Jerry Jones. Go ahead and bench your starting QB and lose a football game, and explain that one to your fans.
As for the issue of punishment, this isn't even up for debate. The league can't act against protesting players until this is collectively bargained. Teams could maybe get away with fines or suspensions under the boilerplate contract language about "conduct detrimental to the team," but I bet that would end up in court.
As for the issue of punishment, this isn't even up for debate. The league can't act against protesting players until this is collectively bargained. Teams could maybe get away with fines or suspensions under the boilerplate contract language about "conduct detrimental to the team," but I bet that would end up in court.
It's unthinkable that Jones would bench Prescott, Bryant or Elliot. The threat is probably a publicity stunt to curry favor with the President and the anti-protest fans.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
It's likely not a coincidence that pretty much every Cowboys fan I know who is not a native of Dallas is also a MAGA. Observing the average intelligence of Cowboys fans that call into sports talk radio, along with the ones I know personally, I've got a theory about that.
Berzerker
Deity
Really?
No, they aren't. Being benched just means they don't play. They still get paid and still have their contract. When Jones (or any other owner) threatens to terminate a player's contract for kneeling, then you can say their jobs are being threatened. Suspensions also don't count since, again, they still get paid.
Also, the "jobs are being threatened" argument doesn't work on me anyway, since I believe a private employer should be allowed to fire employees if their political beliefs are deemed to be "controversial". That goes for anyone, be they Nazis, anarchists, communists, or BLM.
Still waiting for their right to free speech to actually come under attack.
But they don't have more power than the sponsors.
And what are the players going to do? Go on strike? Yeah, tell these players to go ask MLB players how well that worked out for them in the 90s. While they have certainly recovered quite a bit, MLB is still suffering in the popularity department because of that strike. See the problem is there really is no action the players can take to hurt the owners that doesn't hurt them as well. They know this, which is why they never really try to exercise that power you say they have.
You just said the owners were having a league meeting which you assumed was to change the rules to allow them to punish players for not standing... again, against the backdrop of the Vice President, President and Attorney General pressuring them to. But as you now say... you dont care about workplace reprisals anyway or anymore or whatever... so this is a moot argument. I will note that from my perspective, it seems like the argument only became moot once you lost it
As an aside... do you at least acknowledge that you were wrong that standing can be punished under the current rules? Since there would be no need to change the rules otherwise, right?
And none of those punishments involve them losing their jobs. So again, their jobs are not being threatened.
No, it's the sponsors that are pressuring the league to change the rule. When it was just Trump and angry fans, Goodell was all for the players' right to protest. It wasn't until the sponsors threatened to pull that sweet, sweet revenue that Goodell all of a sudden decided the protests need to stop.
Well that would just show you don't pay attention to what I post. I have always maintained that employers should retain the right to fire employees for any reason as long as it doesn't violate one of the protected categories under US law. Political belief or affiliation is currently not considered a protected category when it comes to private employers. That's been a pretty consistent belief of mine and you'll find that I've never really argued against it when people say Nazis should be fired for their beliefs.
No, I think it's a grey area where there is no clear answer and no precedent since the rule has never had to be enforced.
Not really. As I said, it's a grey area with language that is unclear and the meeting in New York is going to change that language to clear up any confusion and better reflect their intent with the rule in question.
The truth is that you have no idea what the punishments will or wont involve and your'e engaging in self serving speculation... but again as you point out, and I acknowledge that it is correctly pointed out... you have multiple times in the past taken a hard line in favor of employers absolute right to fire employees... so the rest of this argument is, as I've said moot, because you will always side with the employers right to fire, suspend, flog, boil-in-oil etc
... regardless of what some silly rules or laws say or don't say.@Berzerker - yes really... and truly... for sure man... Do you have something to add?
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
Yes they do. The league is worthless to sponsors without the players. Countless other football leagues have failed for this exact reason. The players are often unwilling to exercise this power, and understandably so. But they have it.
They can kneel in defiance of owners. Dare the owners to punish them and then sue them if they do. Until this issue is collectively bargained, there is little recourse the owners have other than refusing to dress or cutting players who kneel, but no team is ever going to sit or cut their star players. I fully expect the players and owners will work this out in the next CBA, but until then the players have the power to tell the commissioner and the owners to go fudge themselves.
