![]() |
New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem (/Thread-New-policy-requires-on-field-players-personnel-to-stand-for-anthem) |
New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - GMDino - 05-23-2018 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. RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - Griever - 05-23-2018 forced patriotism isnt real patriotism RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - Nately120 - 05-23-2018 Ehh, everyone wins. The protesters get 89 million for their cause and every one can pretend forcing someone to stand means something. RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - CKwi88 - 05-23-2018 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? RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - CKwi88 - 05-23-2018 (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. RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - Griever - 05-23-2018 (05-23-2018, 03:14 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Whatever. I really just don't want to hear any more about it. i think they can stay in the locker room if they want RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - fredtoast - 05-23-2018 (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. RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - Nately120 - 05-23-2018 (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. RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - bfine32 - 05-23-2018 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. RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - GMDino - 05-23-2018 (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. 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. RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 05-23-2018 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. RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - Nately120 - 05-23-2018 Aren't people going to be mad they are disrespecting the anthem by refusing to leave the locker room? RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 05-23-2018 (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 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. RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - fredtoast - 05-23-2018 (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. 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. RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - GMDino - 05-23-2018 (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. 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. RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - GMDino - 05-23-2018 (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 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. RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - Nately120 - 05-23-2018 (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. RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - bfine32 - 05-23-2018 (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. 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. RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - Nately120 - 05-23-2018 (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. RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - GMDino - 05-23-2018 (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. |