Batman1876 Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 57 minutes ago, 1ManRaid said: Last I checked, game day in the stadium is their workplace, and employers are entitled to have rules about workplace conduct including political statements and the like. Those rules are outlined in the CBA standing at the anthem is not a rule. You can’t add new rules to that agreement on a whim. Otherwise you could have ownership adding rules on a whim all the time. And you know Jerry Jones would add in a “wash the owners car “ rule if he could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince88 Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 6 hours ago, oldmanfan said: Yep. You make an NFL roster you are expected to step up when your name is called. i'm fairly certain he won't retire at halftime. Didnt he do well in the second half last week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 Just now, PlayoffsPlease said: The collective bargaining agreement is not the constitution. This may be the root cause of your confused view of things. No confusion here. The constitution allows 1st amendment rights in the public sector and its restricted in the private sector with some exclusions. So an NFL team, while privately owned partners with the public sector in many areas. The league (and all leagues) defer to the collective bargaining agreement between the players and owners. They decide the rules and regulations that will govern the business. The result is that the league doesn’t punish players or restrict their ability to exercise those rights. Whether you like it or not that IS how it is being handled. It may change at some point but if it does it won’t because of the constitution. It will be because the players and owners reached an agreement that they are both comfortable with. The owners can’t function without the players and the players can’t function without the league. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayoffsPlease Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said: No confusion here. The constitution allows 1st amendment rights in the public sector and its restricted in the private sector with some exclusions. So an NFL team, while privately owned partners with the public sector in many areas. The league (and all leagues) defer to the collective bargaining agreement between the players and owners. They decide the rules and regulations that will govern the business. The result is that the league doesn’t punish players or restrict their ability to exercise those rights. Whether you like it or not that IS how it is being handled. It may change at some point but if it does it won’t because of the constitution. It will be because the players and owners reached an agreement that they are both comfortable with. The owners can’t function without the players and the players can’t function without the league. You desire things to be a certain way even though they are not. Your rambling only confirms your confusion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce_Stools Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: No confusion here. The constitution allows 1st amendment rights in the public sector and its restricted in the private sector with some exclusions. So an NFL team, while privately owned partners with the public sector in many areas. The league (and all leagues) defer to the collective bargaining agreement between the players and owners. They decide the rules and regulations that will govern the business. The result is that the league doesn’t punish players or restrict their ability to exercise those rights. Whether you like it or not that IS how it is being handled. It may change at some point but if it does it won’t because of the constitution. It will be because the players and owners reached an agreement that they are both comfortable with. The owners can’t function without the players and the players can’t function without the league. The game operations manual clearly says in order to stay within policy, a player should be standing on the sideline with a helmet in their left hand during the anthem. That is a guideline every team follows. What i I quoted earlier was directly from a representative of the NFL. It is a rule Edited September 22, 2018 by Bruce_Stools Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman1876 Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 7 minutes ago, Bruce_Stools said: The game operations manual clearly says in order to stay within policy, a player should be standing on the sideline with a helmet in their left hand during the anthem. That is a guideline every team follows. What i I quoted earlier was directly from a representative of the NFL. It is a rule Should is different than must. 9 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said: You desire things to be a certain way even though they are not. Your rambling only confirms your confusion. Pretty sure you are the one confused on this one. Not sure what the source of your confusion is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 8 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said: You desire things to be a certain way even though they are not. Your rambling only confirms your confusion. No confusion at all. The Packers are a part of the public sector. The constitution can’t restrict them from expressing themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 9 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said: You desire things to be a certain way even though they are not. Your rambling only confirms your confusion. The cba restricts what players can be punished for. This is a slightly ambiguous instance of whether or not a player can be punished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Bruce_Stools said: The game operations manual clearly says in order to stay within policy, a player should be standing on the sideline with a helmet in their left hand during the anthem. That is a guideline every team follows. What i I quoted earlier was directly from a representative of the NFL. It is a rule The bolded word is why it can’t and hasn’t been enforced. “Should” isn’t a requirement. That has already been challenged and decided. If they changed it to “must” it would be different but they can’t do that without the player’s approval. Edited September 22, 2018 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce_Stools Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: The bolded word is why it can’t and hasn’t been enforced. “Should” isn’t a requirement. That has already been challenged and decided. If they changed it to “must” it would be different but they can’t do that without the player’s approval. According to stay within policy a.k.a. “The rules” a player should be standing at attention with a helmet in his hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthNYfan Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 12 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: No confusion here. The constitution allows 1st amendment rights in the public sector and its restricted in the private sector with some exclusions. So an NFL team, while privately owned partners with the public sector in many areas. The league (and all leagues) defer to the collective bargaining agreement between the players and owners. They decide the rules and regulations that will govern the business. The result is that the league doesn’t punish players or restrict their ability to exercise those rights. Whether you like it or not that IS how it is being handled. It may change at some point but if it does it won’t because of the constitution. It will be because the players and owners reached an agreement that they are both comfortable with. The owners can’t function without the players and the players can’t function without the league. Nobody is "punishing" kaep or eric or any other kneeling players. These players are not suspended, fined, or anything of the sort for violating any rules. They are however not employed by NFL teams as it seems ALL owners/teams have decided that the possible negative backlash (or just media circus in general) from signing one of these players was not worth risking. It has nothing to do with rules or being punished, nobody punished them in regards to the rules. An NFL team is a private employer as a whole. The public watches them and supports them, but they are not part of the ownership of the teams. The owners decided to avoid these players for risk of hurting the perception of their business, which, since their entire worth is determined by how many people watch/buy merch/tickets/etc, could be negatively affected by the kneeling. I work for a private medical company, a very large one. If I start protesting in my parking lot during work hours, I'm going to lose my job. If I start posting volatile stuff all over my social media, I may also risk my job, as my employer does not want to be associated with me in the public eye. That's how a free country works. You have the freedom of govt oppression, but not freedom of employer backlash. Constitution protects you from the government, not your employer. 10 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said: You desire things to be a certain way even though they are not. Your rambling only confirms your confusion. See what I said above, hope that cleared it up for him, probably not though. 7 minutes ago, Bruce_Stools said: The game operations manual clearly says in order to stay within policy, a player should be standing on the sideline with a helmet in their left hand during the anthem. That is a guideline every team follows. What i I quoted earlier was directly from a representative of the NFL. It is a rule Right, so what you posted says they must be on the field, but SHOULD stand for the anthem. It doesn't say anything about they MUST stand for the anthem. So as long as they are on the field, they technically didn't violate any rules. **disclaimer: I fully support their right to kneel, constitutionally, but also fully support the private employers right to not employ somebody who might negatively affect the public perception of their company, thus hurting profits/business** 9 minutes ago, Batman1876 said: Should is different than must. Pretty sure you are the one confused on this one. Not sure what the source of your confusion is. Playoffsplease is not confused. These players aren't being punished within the league, they are being left unemployed as free agents, as no team wants to risk the negative press associated with the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce_Stools Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 5 minutes ago, NoSaint said: The cba restricts what players can be punished for. This is a slightly ambiguous instance of whether or not a player can be punished. I’m actually a little confused honestly. Even though the nfl rule book and the operations manual, according to an nfl representative, govern the nfl, the cba is actually the only way to determine a rule or what’s punishable or not? Isn’t that what the books are for in the first place. Wouldn’t that have been cleared by the players association before anything gets put into said books??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Bruce_Stools said: According to stay within policy a.k.a. “The rules” a player should be standing at attention with a helmet in his hand. They “should” be. It has already been determined that you cant punish someone for something that they “should” do. That’s why guys can (and are) still kneeling with no repercussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddie's Dead Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 GIT 'R' DUN!!! This guy is a stud. Kneeling on a football field should not constitute a lifetime ban when druggies and domestic abusers continue to get chance after chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde Smith Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 59 minutes ago, Buffalo86 said: This team has a solid chance of earning the #1 pick. Signing someone like Reid might cause us to plummet to #2 or 3. No thanks. We have one of the oldest roster in the league. Do you really think they give a cats *** about a 1st pick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 8 hours ago, MAJBobby said: I would have signed him. Makes team better. But he kneeled so NFL blackballed him. Felons rapists abusers drugs running around naked gun violations murderers All ok. But DONT exercise your Constitutional Rights. Then your not welcome Well said. Its nuts...dont forget animal massacres and not just abusers, but child abusers too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthNYfan Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said: They “should” be. It has already been determined that you cant punish someone for something that they “should” do. That’s why guys can (and are) still kneeling with no repercussions. The repercussions are arising when their contracts are up. Teams have not signed a couple of these guys who knelt, as they don't want the media storm that comes with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce_Stools Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said: They “should” be. It has already been determined that you cant punish someone for something that they “should” do. That’s why guys can (and are) still kneeling with no repercussions. If you have any knowledge of the cba, rule book, and the operations manual, can you answer the question I had for the other guy? I honestly don’t know. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman1876 Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 We don’t know if the owners made an agreement to not hire these players. If they did then they are at fault. That’s what needs to be sorted out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: Nobody is "punishing" kaep or eric or any other kneeling players. These players are not suspended, fined, or anything of the sort for violating any rules. They are however not employed by NFL teams as it seems ALL owners/teams have decided that the possible negative backlash (or just media circus in general) from signing one of these players was not worth risking. It has nothing to do with rules or being punished, nobody punished them in regards to the rules. An NFL team is a private employer as a whole. The public watches them and supports them, but they are not part of the ownership of the teams. The owners decided to avoid these players for risk of hurting the perception of their business, which, since their entire worth is determined by how many people watch/buy merch/tickets/etc, could be negatively affected by the kneeling. I work for a private medical company, a very large one. If I start protesting in my parking lot during work hours, I'm going to lose my job. If I start posting volatile stuff all over my social media, I may also risk my job, as my employer does not want to be associated with me in the public eye. That's how a free country works. You have the freedom of govt oppression, but not freedom of employer backlash. Constitution protects you from the government, not your employer. See what I said above, hope that cleared it up for him, probably not though. Right, so what you posted says they must be on the field, but SHOULD stand for the anthem. It doesn't say anything about they MUST stand for the anthem. So as long as they are on the field, they technically didn't violate any rules. **disclaimer: I fully support their right to kneel, constitutionally, but also fully support the private employers right to not employ somebody who might negatively affect the public perception of their company, thus hurting profits/business** The only place that we disagree is that not all 32 teams are private. 31 are and that is a part of the reason that it is difficult to enforce. In general, I agree with your sentiment. FWIW, I wouldn’t sign either of these guys because the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. If Khalil Mack was the guy doing this I would be all for adding him. If I thought that these guys could impact the team I’d be all for it. I don’t think that the media attention and distractions are worth it for these guys. 1 minute ago, SouthNYfan said: The repercussions are arising when their contracts are up. Teams have not signed a couple of these guys who knelt, as they don't want the media storm that comes with it. 100% agree 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts