New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem

[GMDino]

Good.  That's settled.  They have a rule and the players know where they stand (pardon the pun).

Bad. They still haven't defined what "disrespecting" is.  What if they turn around?  

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23582533/nfl-owners-approve-new-national-anthem-policy

Quote: NFL owners have unanimously approved a new 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.


The policy subjects teams to a fine if a player or any other team personnel do not show respect for the anthem. That includes any attempt to sit or kneel, as dozens of players have done during the past two seasons. Those teams will also have the option to fine any team personnel, including players, for the infraction.

"We want people to be respectful of the national anthem," commissioner Roger Goodell said. "We want people to stand -- that's all personnel -- and make sure they treat this moment in a respectful fashion. That's something we think we owe. [But] we were also very sensitive to give players choices."

All 32 owners approved the policy, which will be part of the NFL's game operations manual and thus not subject to collective bargaining. The NFL Players Association said in a statement that it will review the policy and "challenge any aspect" that is inconsistent with the CBA.

Some important details remained unclear in the hours after the policy's approval, including the specific fine that teams would be subject to and also how the league will define respect for the flag.

After spending months in discussions, and another three hours over two days at the league's spring meetings, owners believe this found a compromise that will end sitting or kneeling with an edict that stops short of requiring every player to stand.

The previous policy required players to be on the field for the anthem but said only that they "should" stand. When then-San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick began kneeling to protest police brutality in 2016, the league had no rule it could use to prevent it. The movement drew increasing criticism from President Donald Trump, as well as many fans, who believed it was a sign of disrespect toward the flag and country.

Owners, however, had been divided on how to extricate the league from that criticism. Some owners, including the Dallas Cowboys' Jerry Jones and the Houston Texans' Bob McNair, wanted all players to stand. Others, such as the New York Jets' Christopher Johnson, wanted to avoid any appearance of muzzling players.

Even the seemingly simple option of clearing the field prior to the anthem was rejected by some owners who thought it would be interpreted as a mass protest or at least a sign of disrespect.

Earlier this week, the league finalized an $89 million social justice platform with players to help address "some of the underlying issues" that were under protest, said Mark Murphy, the Green Bay Packers' president/CEO.

"I think we learned from each other in order to come to a unanimous consensus," Murphy said. "We also talked a lot about our players. I think when you look back at last fall, it was difficult for all of us within the league. But one of the positives that came out of it was an improved relationship with our players."

In a statement accompanying the announcement, Goodell said the league wanted to eliminate criticism that suggested the protests were unpatriotic.

"It was unfortunate that on-field protests created a false perception among many that thousands of NFL players were unpatriotic," Goodell said. "This is not and was never the case."

Kaepernick and former 49ers safety Eric Reid have both filed collusion cases against the league after failing to find jobs as free agents.

[Griever]

forced patriotism isnt real patriotism

[*Nately120*]

Ehh, everyone wins. The protesters get 89 million for their cause and every one can pretend forcing someone to stand means something.

[CKwi88]

Whatever. I really just don't want to hear any more about it.

Only questions I have are 1: are players going to be forced to be on the field for the anthem? And 2: what constitutes"disrespect" towards the flag?

[CKwi88]

(05-23-2018, 02:54 PM)Griever Wrote: forced patriotism isnt real patriotism

Well, we're spoon fed patriotism from kindergarten, so it's really just the US's MO at this point.

[Griever]

(05-23-2018, 03:14 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Whatever. I really just don't want to hear any more about it.

Only questions I have are 1: are players going to be forced to be on the field for the anthem? And 2: what constitutes"disrespect" towards the flag?

i think they can stay in the locker room if they want 

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 02:58 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ehh, everyone wins. The protesters get 89 million for their cause and every one can pretend forcing someone to stand means something.

This.

[*Nately120*]

(05-23-2018, 03:17 PM)Griever Wrote: i think they can stay in the locker room if they want 

So they aren't being forced to stand for the anthem at all?  There goes the impact. 

[*bfine32*]

Seems the best of both worlds. If you want to show respect to the Nation and what it stands for, great, if you do not you are welcome to wait in the locker room. Seems the NFL is just making sure their sidelines are not a place for protests.

As to the OP's question of turn around. Pretty sure that's covered here:

The policy subjects teams to a fine if a player or any other team personnel do not show respect for the anthem.

[GMDino]

(05-23-2018, 03:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems the best of both worlds. If you want to show respect to the Nation and what it stands for, great, if you do not you are welcome to wait in the locker room. Seems the NFL is just making sure their sidelines are not a place for protests.

As to the OP's question of turn around. Pretty sure that's covered here:

The policy subjects teams to a fine if a player or any other team personnel do not show respect for the anthem.

They don't define what that might entail.

What if they don't put their hand on their heart?  What if they are talking to someone else? 

They left enough gray area for someone to find it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

The actual point appears to be lost on some, political protest at a place of business is going to almost always be unwelcome.  If you're in the entertainment business then this is even more unwelcome.  A person's perception is that person's reality, it doesn't matter why Kaepernick and others are kneeling if a person observing their kneeling interprets it as disrespect to our nation.  It doesn't matter why the NFL is allowing it if the person observing it perceives it as disrespecting the nation.  To put it simply, politicizing your business is a piss poor business decision.  Allowing your employees to politicize your business is a piss poor business decision.  I'm not allowed to protest at work, send a personal e-mail from my work e-mail or represent my department in any way during my private life.  This is one of the reasons I have never disclosed what agency I am employed by, as my viewpoints are my own and should not be associated with them in any way.


The NFL made the right call, they just did it a year too late.  If Goodell where anything other than a sock puppet he would have squashed this the first time it happened for the above reasons.  The NFL is a business, it's as simple as that.

[*Nately120*]

Aren't people going to be mad they are disrespecting the anthem by refusing to leave the locker
room?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-23-2018, 03:48 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Aren't people going to be mad they are disrespecting the anthem by refusing to leave the locker
room?

People tend to be far more upset by what they see rather than what they don't see.  If you saw a murder, you'd be traumatized.  Yet, you read about people being killed probably every day in the news.  An extreme example, I realize.

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 03:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The actual point appears to be lost on some, political protest at a place of business is going to almost always be unwelcome.  If you're in the entertainment business then this is even more unwelcome.  A person's perception is that person's reality, it doesn't matter why Kaepernick and others are kneeling if a person observing their kneeling interprets it as disrespect to our nation.  It doesn't matter why the NFL is allowing it if the person observing it perceives it as disrespecting the nation.  To put it simply, politicizing your business is a piss poor business decision.  Allowing your employees to politicize your business is a piss poor business decision.  I'm not allowed to protest at work, send a personal e-mail from my work e-mail or represent my department in any way during my private life.  This is one of the reasons I have never disclosed what agency I am employed by, as my viewpoints are my own and should not be associated with them in any way.


The NFL made the right call, they just did it a year too late.  If Goodell where anything other than a sock puppet he would have squashed this the first time it happened for the above reasons.  The NFL is a business, it's as simple as that.

I agree that it is a good idea to keep politics out of the business, but it is hard to do without picking sides.  And there were a lot of people on both sides of this issue.

You need the rule in place before the protest starts because if you wait and react to a protest then you are seen as silencing a call for justice.

[GMDino]

(05-23-2018, 03:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The actual point appears to be lost on some, political protest at a place of business is going to almost always be unwelcome.  If you're in the entertainment business then this is even more unwelcome.  A person's perception is that person's reality, it doesn't matter why Kaepernick and others are kneeling if a person observing their kneeling interprets it as disrespect to our nation.  It doesn't matter why the NFL is allowing it if the person observing it perceives it as disrespecting the nation.  To put it simply, politicizing your business is a piss poor business decision.  Allowing your employees to politicize your business is a piss poor business decision.  I'm not allowed to protest at work, send a personal e-mail from my work e-mail or represent my department in any way during my private life.  This is one of the reasons I have never disclosed what agency I am employed by, as my viewpoints are my own and should not be associated with them in any way.


The NFL made the right call, they just did it a year too late.  If Goodell where anything other than a sock puppet he would have squashed this the first time it happened for the above reasons.  The NFL is a business, it's as simple as that.

You will get no argument from me that this was simply a business decision.  But I will say I'd rather they take time to take the reasons behind the protests into account rather than rashly force rules.  As you say, they are a business, and their decision to let the teams handle it until they could get together to formulate a better rule is okay in my book.

Let's add that this would not have been as huge a deal as it was if the current POTUS didn't make a big deal about it.  He riled up people who probably never watched football and never would have known or cared until they were told to care because it (falsely accused) of disrespecting the troops.

[GMDino]

(05-23-2018, 03:48 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Aren't people going to be mad they are disrespecting the anthem by refusing to leave the locker
room?

Of course they are.  We saw what happened when the Steelers stood in the tunnel one game to avoid the controversy altogether.

But then people will get mad about anything except exactly what THEY want, so there's that too.

[*Nately120*]

(05-23-2018, 03:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: People tend to be far more upset by what they see rather than what they don't see.  If you saw a murder, you'd be traumatized.  Yet, you read about people being killed probably every day in the news.  An extreme example, I realize.

Possibly.  I think back to my own experiences of being penalized for not singing in church and knowing not going to church wasn't going to be seen as a reasonable compromise. 

If they're staying in the locker room they are choosing not to respect the flag .That's not disrespect, I guess but I still see it causing issues for some people . Time will tell. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2018, 04:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Of course they are.  We saw what happened when the Steelers stood in the tunnel one game to avoid the controversy altogether.

But then people will get mad about anything except exactly what THEY want, so there's that too.

I really recall no outrage about the Steelers choosing to stay inside; I know a lot of folks that applauded it. There was quite a big deal about the former Military man that came outside. 

[*Nately120*]

(05-23-2018, 04:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I really recall no outrage about the Steelers choosing to stay inside; I know a lot of folks that applauded it. There was quite a big deal about the former Military man that came outside. 

I recall some friction, but I'm in an ultra red part of PA. 

[GMDino]

(05-23-2018, 04:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I really recall no outrage about the Steelers choosing to stay inside; I know a lot of folks that applauded it. There was quite a big deal about the former Military man that came outside. 

(05-23-2018, 04:26 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I recall some friction, but I'm in an ultra red part of PA. 

I'm 40 minutes from Pittsburgh...it was made into a big deal.

But then it was on this board too.