Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Colin Kaepernick Thread and related anthem kneeling issues/news


Recommended Posts

Just now, parasaurolophus said:

I have only been to a few football games and dont recall being in a concession line when the anthem starts, but been to tons of baseball games and stadiums. If i have ever been in line when the anthem starts the workers have always stopped serving during the anthem. I figured this was already policy.

Interesting. I've had the opposite experience and I go to probably 30-40 MLB/NBA games a year, so it's definitely not policy everywhere.  And I'm guessing it's probably not policy at most NFL games, which have fewer opportunities for people to line up for concessions during the game. But I'm not sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

says the guy who is on an internet politics forum while the game is on saying he doesnt want to be bothered by political stuff during the game take that to the bank bromigos 

John Chavez‏ @jchavezfbnm 4h4 hours ago Replying to @realDonaldTrump "Thinking NFL players are 'protesting the flag' is like thinking Rosa Parks was protesting public transportation."

I'm quoting you here, but I am not really directing this at you, since I believe you have no ability to take yourself out of your shoes. But for a second, try to imagine being a black person who has g

I would say just stop having the anthem before events but I actually enjoy it.  I think they just shouldn't have the teams or staff on the field at all during it.  I don't think they do it during most college football games, do they?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I have only been to a few football games and dont recall being in a concession line when the anthem starts, but been to tons of baseball games and stadiums. If i have ever been in line when the anthem starts the workers have always stopped serving during the anthem. I figured this was already policy.

Every place is different.  I've been to some places where people just continue on with whatever they're doing.  I was at a Cubs/Cardinals game at Busch Stadium a couple weeks ago and I noticed the concession stands actually stopped serving during it.  I choose to stop because that's what I like to do.  If someone else wants to ignore I think that's perfectly fine as well.  Me choosing to pay attention to the anthem is what makes it special for me.  The moment I feel forced to do it is the moment I will no longer feel proud to support it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I have only been to a few football games and dont recall being in a concession line when the anthem starts, but been to tons of baseball games and stadiums. If i have ever been in line when the anthem starts the workers have always stopped serving during the anthem. I figured this was already policy.

I believe either the Yankees or Mets would specifically prevent fans from moving during the National Anthem or God Bless America after 9/11.  

This isn't new except that now people complain about everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tjnc09 said:

I believe either the Yankees or Mets would specifically prevent fans from moving during the National Anthem or God Bless America after 9/11.  

This isn't new except that now people complain about everything.

Sounds like complaining to me. Thanks for being part of the problem and not part of the solution 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tjnc09 said:

I believe either the Yankees or Mets would specifically prevent fans from moving during the National Anthem or God Bless America after 9/11.  

This isn't new except that now people complain about everything.

They got sued for that. They lost i think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I assume the Ravens will be kicking out every Baltimore fan who yells "O" in the middle of the anthem tribute to the Orioles.  Doesn't get much more disrespectful than interrupting the national anthem's dramatic penultimate line because you want to show your love for a baseball team.  At least the players are distracting from the anthem to protest injustice, not to glorify an organization that gave a 30-year-old Chris Davis 161 million dollars.

There’s a difference between a paying customer and an employee. Lots of fans sat during the anthem this year at NFL games. We saw lots of pictures of it on social media. I’m not aware of any team taking any action to try and stop the actions of any paying customer on their own time. Likely some ownership groups even agree with it. That doesn’t mean their business gets involved. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, tjnc09 said:

It's funny how few people here understand that.   

I think most do understand it. Nobody is questioning the Owners' right to do this (though they may have some kind of agreement with the players' union, but that's a separate issue.)

I just think that it's a bad move.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Apparently one of them will!
 

Kudos to the 49ers for actually taking a principled position.

As a 49ers fan let me say that there’s hardly anyone at the new stadium to buy concessions so it’s no big loss. What a colossal dumpster fire that stadium is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

There’s a difference between a paying customer and an employee. Lots of fans sat during the anthem this year at NFL games. We saw lots of pictures of it on social media. I’m not aware of any team taking any action to try and stop the actions of any paying customer on their own time. Likely some ownership groups even agree with it. That doesn’t mean their business gets involved. 

Paying customers are the ones driving the owners' decisionmaking on this issue, as you've often said, and I agree.

So setting aside the owners' role here (obviously I wasn't serious with my proposal that they kick out every Baltimore fan), why do the fans collectively tolerate yelling during the national anthem but not silent kneeling or the raising of a fist? What difference does paying vs being paid make?  Disrespect is disrespect.  If paying money entitles you to disrespect the anthem, does that mean the more money you pay the more disrespectful you can be?  Can the people in the luxury suites wipe their ### with the flag mid-anthem with everyone's blessing?

Edited by TobiasFunke
Link to post
Share on other sites

The players who don`t want to stand can stay in the locker room during then anthem.   TV stations can report who is in the locker room and the masses will know who is protesting.   Don`t have to be on the field to protest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JIslander said:

If I'm an employer, and 70% of my employees are black, I think I'd be a little more sensitive about this issue.  I dont know what the best solution is, but it doesnt sound like its this latest decision.

It's a non-decision that will make no one happy later on. If tons of player stay in the locker room, I can't wait until the first complaint of "I didn't pay money to not see players on the sidelines during the national anthem!" Then the NFL will legislate new rules on players in the locker room during the anthem and all Hell will break loose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Da Guru said:


The players who don`t want to stand can stay in the locker room during then anthem. TV stations can report who is in the locker room and the masses will know who is protesting. Don`t have to be on the field to protest.


It's sad that anyone would make a blanket assumption that players who are still in the locker room are protesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jets chairman Christopher Johnson says he’ll pay anthem-related league fines for his players

Two owners so far doing the right thing. That's two more than I would have guessed. One exposing obvious hypocrisy, and one supporting his players. The latter also might turn out to be self-interest, as it makes the team a more attractive option to free agents (like any pro-labor employer policy).

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen the full rule? Wondering if it as limited as "Must stand" or a more comprehensive list of items like the NBA has, which were designed to prevent players from being a distraction or disrespectful. (stand in a dignified position, no gum chewing, no dribbling, etc) The former would come across as trying to avoid a specific behavior (which we know it is) while the latter is more about general environment they want to create. The former would seem to allow alternative forms of protest like raised fist or turning back to the flag and anthem singer. Curious how much thoughtfulness and foresight went into the rule. I also agree with those pointing out staying in the locker room is a form of protest and will get coverage.

Here are the NBA rules:
https://twitter.com/BobbyMarks42/status/913533564205043712/photo/1?tfw_creator=ColinCBSSports&tfw_site=cbssports&ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbssports.com%2Fnba%2Fnews%2Fnba-commish-adam-silver-expects-players-to-stand-for-anthem-cites-league-rule%2F

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

The players who don`t want to stand can stay in the locker room during then anthem.   TV stations can report who is in the locker room and the masses will know who is protesting.   Don`t have to be on the field to protest.

And the networks are going to do that? Yeah, right...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Synthesizer said:

So players have been kneeling to protest police brutality and racial inequality.  I still haven't heard what criteria must be met in order for players to stop protesting.

"Jobs and Freedom?  Could you BE any more vague?  Give me some specific action items that would satisfy you or this protest is useless."

-Synthesizer, observing MLK's March on Washington in 1963.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, JIslander said:

If I'm an employer, and 70% of my employees are black, I think I'd be a little more sensitive about this issue.  I dont know what the best solution is, but it doesnt sound like its this latest decision.

The NBA % is higher and they require all athletes to stand during the National Anthem.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

We need to a name change on the thread to Ridiculously stupid False Equivalencies

really surprised not to see this in the USA Shootings thread

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

"Jobs and Freedom?  Could you BE any more vague?  Give me some specific action items that would satisfy you or this protest is useless."

-Synthesizer, observing MLK's March on Washington in 1963.

Welll....

I almost never disagree with you, Tobias, but in fact, the March on Washington did have a series of specific goals:

Passage of meaningful civil rights legislation;

Immediate elimination of school segregation;

A program of public works, including job training, for the unemployed;

A Federal law prohibiting discrimination in public or private hiring;

A $2-an-hour minimum wage nationwide (equivalent to $16 in 2017);

Withholding Federal funds from programs that tolerate discrimination;

Enforcement of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution by reducing congressional representation from States that disenfranchise citizens;

A broadened Fair Labor Standards Act to currently excluded employment areas;

Authority for the Attorney General to institute injunctive suits when constitutional rights are violated.[44]

My criticism of Kaepernick's protest all along has been similar to Hillary's criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement- no specifics. Now this has nothing to do with his right to protest, or the NFL's stupidity (IMO) in attempting to stop it. But I have to question the ultimate effectiveness of any protest in which there are no specific goals.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Benjamin Allbright‏ @AllbrightNFL 2h2 hours ago

The NFL Owners: We want this protest conversation thing to die off and focus on football.

The NFL Owners, as intellectuals: I wonder what happens if we pour kerosene on these smoldering embers...

 

lindsey ok‏ @lindseyyok 1h1 hour ago

The NFL is Top 10 at making an issue 100 times worse than it would be if they just left it alone

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

You can steal it if you want.   Or get Squistion to tweet it out

i'll just like the next post Stealthycat makes comparing guns to baby ducks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tjnc09 said:

The NBA % is higher and they require all athletes to stand during the National Anthem.

The NBA has earned a lot of goodwill by allowing its players wide berth to express themselves on social issues.  It afford to have this controversy-avoiding policy because the players feel free to express themselves in countless other ways, including before, during and immediately after games, and don't even feel the need to test the policy by violating it. Also pro-labor fans like me don't view the owners as particularly oppressive, for these and other reasons.

The NFL is pretty much the exact opposite of that.  Jerry Jones would probably burn Texas Stadium to the ground before letting his players wear "I Can't Breathe" shirts during warm-ups.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, squistion said:

And the networks are going to do that? Yeah, right...

Who knows..maybe in the beginning.   The first few games of the season they were showing all the players who kneeled...After game 8 or so it kinda fizzled out anyway in terms of players kneeling so it was not covered as much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JIslander said:

So? Different employer. We'll see how the NFLPA responds.

https://www.nflpa.com/Contents/Item/Display/77152

For Immediate Release
May 23, 2018

NFLPA Statement on New Anthem Policy

The NFL chose to not consult the union in the development of this new “policy.” NFL players have shown their patriotism through their social activism, their community service, in support of our military and law enforcement and yes, through their protests to raise awareness about the issues they care about.

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.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Welll....

I almost never disagree with you, Tobias, but in fact, the March on Washington did have a series of specific goals:

Passage of meaningful civil rights legislation;

Immediate elimination of school segregation;

A program of public works, including job training, for the unemployed;

A Federal law prohibiting discrimination in public or private hiring;

A $2-an-hour minimum wage nationwide (equivalent to $16 in 2017);

Withholding Federal funds from programs that tolerate discrimination;

Enforcement of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution by reducing congressional representation from States that disenfranchise citizens;

A broadened Fair Labor Standards Act to currently excluded employment areas;

Authority for the Attorney General to institute injunctive suits when constitutional rights are violated.[44]

My criticism of Kaepernick's protest all along has been similar to Hillary's criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement- no specifics. Now this has nothing to do with his right to protest, or the NFL's stupidity (IMO) in attempting to stop it. But I have to question the ultimate effectiveness of any protest in which there are no specific goals.

I've always seen/understood the 1963 march to have a much more vague focus, so apologies to @Synthesizer and others if I was mistaken. 

Still, that just means I chose a poor example IMO. Kaepernick and others have said what they're protesting and what they'd like to see changed, albeit not in detail.  Others have done the same and found success- the women's march, for example, seems to have triggered a wave of women being more active in politics including a jump in female candidates for office, and arguably laid the groundwork for the #metoo movement, even if those goals weren't explicitly stated. The 1968 black power salutes are probably the closest parallel to these protests- that were even more vague in terms of goals, but it set the stage for awareness and athlete activism and is generally seen as an important moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched an interview with Michael Haden. I really love him. As usual, he expressed my views exactly. He revealed himself as a Steelers fan, and said that he views NFL games as an escape from the serious issues of the day, so he really disapproved of what Kaepernick was doing...until Trump got involved. Now, strictly because of the President's involvement on an issue in which the government has no place, Haden is on the side of the players.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TobiasFunke said:

The NBA has earned a lot of goodwill by allowing its players wide berth to express themselves on social issues.  It afford to have this controversy-avoiding policy because the players feel free to express themselves in countless other ways, including before, during and immediately after games, and don't even feel the need to test the policy by violating it. Also pro-labor fans like me don't view the owners as particularly oppressive, for these and other reasons.

The NFL is pretty much the exact opposite of that.  Jerry Jones would probably burn Texas Stadium to the ground before letting his players wear "I Can't Breathe" shirts during warm-ups.

:lmao: the NBA let Donald Sterling own a team for three decades despite a long history of racist and sexist abuse.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

ATLANTA — Despite the NFL’s approval of a revised policy that requires players on the field to stand during the national anthem, Jets chairman Christopher Johnson told Newsday on Wednesday that his players are free to take a knee or perform some other protest without fear of repercussion from the team.

League owners unanimously adopted a policy that allows players who don’t want to participate in the anthem to remain in the locker room. Players who do appear on the field for the anthem must stand; if they don’t, their respective club faces a league-issued fine and teams can levy additional fines.

“I do not like imposing any club-specific rules,” Johnson said. “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. I don’t want to come down on them like a ton of bricks, and I won’t. There will be no club fines or suspensions or any sort of repercussions. If the team gets fined, that’s just something I’ll have to bear.”

Johnson has been highly critical of the possibility that owners would require players to stand. During the owners meetings in Orlando in March, Johnson told reporters he didn’t feel a change in protocol was necessary. “I know there’s some discussion of keeping players off the field until after the anthem. I think that’s a particularly bad idea . . . I just think that trying to forcibly get the players to shut up is a fantastically bad idea.”

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That's especially significant since the actual owner, Woody Johnson, is in the Trump administration.
Though if the vote was unanimous, did he still vote for it? Or abstain like York?

ETA- He explains later in the article:

“I seriously struggled with this,” he said of the anthem modifications approved by the owners. “You know my position on the anthem, and you have to understand that the plan we ended up with, due to some serious work in the [meeting] room, was vastly less onerous than the one that was presented to me late last week. In the end, I felt I had to support it from a membership standpoint.”

The fact that Johnson will pay any fines out of his own pocket and not sanction any players who may want to demonstrate during the anthem made it more palatable that he join his fellow owners in approving the anthem protocol.

“Even without those fines, this is going to be tough on the players, and I want a chance to speak with the coaches and other players to get feedback on this policy and to build on the good work and momentum that we have built up on these issues of social justice, on legislation, and all the things that we can do,” he said. “I don’t think that this policy will interfere with that at all.

Edited by Mystery Achiever
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Just watched an interview with Michael Haden. I really love him. As usual, he expressed my views exactly. He revealed himself as a Steelers fan, and said that he views NFL games as an escape from the serious issues of the day, so he really disapproved of what Kaepernick was doing...until Trump got involved. Now, strictly because of the President's involvement on an issue in which the government has no place, Haden is on the side of the players.

We told you that last year and you disagreed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Just watched an interview with Michael Haden. I really love him. As usual, he expressed my views exactly. He revealed himself as a Steelers fan, and said that he views NFL games as an escape from the serious issues of the day, so he really disapproved of what Kaepernick was doing...until Trump got involved. Now, strictly because of the President's involvement on an issue in which the government has no place, Haden is on the side of the players.

Those thoughts have been posted here a ton :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, squistion said:

And the networks are going to do that? Yeah, right...

I kind of have to disagree on this one. ESPN, this past year, actually ran on the crawl across the bottom of their programming who was protesting. On the front page of their website, they also had a section listing the players who protested.

So I think it would be widely shown who was doing what. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the NFL is misreading the tea leaves here.

I don't think this moves gets back any of their viewers - because I think most people used this as a convenient excuse.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Courtjester said:

I kind of have to disagree on this one. ESPN, this past year, actually ran on the crawl across the bottom of their programming who was protesting. On the front page of their website, they also had a section listing the players who protested.

So I think it would be widely shown who was doing what. 

Agreed.  They won't be able to resist reporting.  38% of the country will want to know for sure...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...