"If Michael Bennett wants to sit for anthem..."

[Rocket]

http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/sp ... 08362.html

McGrath is wrong... I think Michael Bennett has the right to sit, stand, stand on his head, do backflips, whatever, during the Anthem. Some hate it, some don't care, etc... while my mind thinks he should do what his heart says, my heart occasionally wahts to kick him in the nuts... that's the emotional me.

I was impressed with the Hawks unity, both in locking arms and in sitting in the locker room during anthem time - those were examples of team unity. The unity was gone today. Bennett was sitting, Sherm was standing with folded arms, Wilson and Richard were standing hand over heart... all without their unity.

Once they lost their unity, I believe that the team will suffer in some way due to what's happening. It's impossible for the unity to fall without effecting the focus in the game. To be sure it's a physical game, but it's a mental game as well. I fear we're losing the mental game.

I'm glad it's not my decision, but you can't throw a professional team season for social issues... or can you?

 

[hawk45]

http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/john-mcgrath/article167208362.html

McGrath is wrong... I think Michael Bennett has the right to sit, stand, stand on his head, do backflips, whatever, during the Anthem. Some hate it, some don't care, etc... while my mind thinks he should do what his heart says, my heart occasionally wahts to kick him in the nuts... that's the emotional me.

I didn't see where McGrath says Bennett doesn't have the right to sit during the anthem. McGrath simply exercises his own right to disagree with what Bennett is doing.

 

[seahawkfreak]

He does not have the "right" to sit. It is not a federal issue, it is in the work place. I am not allowed to go into my job and say anything I want. Now the NFL rule states that the "players should stand", which is very vague but I believe the NFL still could enforce it but are choosing not to. Nothing to do with rights though.

 

[WmHBonney]

He does not have the "right" to sit. It is not a federal issue, it is in the work place. I am not allowed to go into my job and say anything I want. Now the NFL rule states that the "players should stand", which is very vague but I believe the NFL still could enforce it but are choosing not to. Nothing to do with rights though.

This is what EVERYONE, including the mamby pamby media, is too scared to point out.

 

[TestMo1337]

Hard to compare this to "normal" jobs.

I can't recall the last time I've had to stand at work for the Anthem.

The NFL/owners very well could cut Bennett for standing but he's so good he would get signed right away and sit again.

The anthem is essentially "down time" during the game. It has no importance to the play on the field. The entire Defensive Line sat with Bennett during that game and had its best performance. I would maybe hold off on this question until they lose due to the DL.

 

[Rocket]

He does not have the "right" to sit. It is not a federal issue, it is in the work place. I am not allowed to go into my job and say anything I want. Now the NFL rule states that the "players should stand", which is very vague but I believe the NFL still could enforce it but are choosing not to. Nothing to do with rights though.

This is what EVERYONE, including the mamby pamby media, is too scared to point out.

He has the right to speak. period. The NFL, the Hawks, they have the right to fire anyone who breaches their contract and/or league rules. They also have the right to support said speech. This is how the whole constitution/legal thing works.

 

[Rocket]

Hard to compare this to "normal" jobs.

I can't recall the last time I've had to stand at work for the Anthem.

They are arguably violating their contract and the league operating procedures if reports are correct, and I believe they are. Just because they violate the rules the employers aren't required to enforce them, this isn't k-12 with the "no common sense" rule.

 

[KitsapGuy]

The NFL rulebook makes no mention of the national anthem. But the game operations manual does.

Here’s what the game operations manual says regarding the national anthem, according to an NFL spokesperson:

"The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses."

It’s important to note the use of the word “may” here. The NFL is not considering punishing fines on players or teams who choose to kneel or stay in the locker room during the national anthem, the spokesperson says.

— Sean Gregory contributed to this report.

This story originally appeared on TIME.com.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/09/25/does- ... nal-anthem

 

[seahawkfreak]

He does not have the "right" to sit. It is not a federal issue, it is in the work place. I am not allowed to go into my job and say anything I want. Now the NFL rule states that the "players should stand", which is very vague but I believe the NFL still could enforce it but are choosing not to. Nothing to do with rights though.

This is what EVERYONE, including the mamby pamby media, is too scared to point out.

He has the right to speak. period. The NFL, the Hawks, they have the right to fire anyone who breaches their contract and/or league rules. They also have the right to support said speech. This is how the whole constitution/legal thing works.

My friend you are conflating things here. The constitution deals with political speech (federally). I can not walk into a private business that I work at and say I hate a said race. You will be fired and it is legal to be fired. I can however say on a phone that I disagree with the politics of a said political party and not result in any repercussions from that, my political expressions/speech is/are protected. That is what the Constitution protects. There is a difference.

 

[seahawkfreak]

The NFL rulebook makes no mention of the national anthem. But the game operations manual does.

Here’s what the game operations manual says regarding the national anthem, according to an NFL spokesperson:

"The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses."

It’s important to note the use of the word “may” here. The NFL is not considering punishing fines on players or teams who choose to kneel or stay in the locker room during the national anthem, the spokesperson says.

— Sean Gregory contributed to this report.

This story originally appeared on TIME.com.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/09/25/does- ... nal-anthem

Okay. Can the NFL enforce its game operations manual then or choose not to? Game operations sound like a kind of rules. Not sure if you were helping my point or refuting it and since there is two options I will go with you supporting my point.

 

[Palmegranite]

The NFL rulebook makes no mention of the national anthem. But the game operations manual does.

"The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. spokesperson says.

Note the difference between the words 'must' and 'should'. They must be on the sideline, that's legally definitive wording. Should is more hopeful suggestion.
As in 'you must be at your desk at 9 AM' and 'you should appear presentable at all times'

 

[KitsapGuy]

There is no rule in the NFL rulebook about standing for the anthem.

There is, however, a “policy” about the anthem and the flag in the “Game Operations Manual,” a 230-page internal document (not available to the public) sent to all 32 teams each year.

You might say a “rule” and “policy” are the same thing.

But to the NFL, the distinction matters. Policies are encouraged, but not required — as opposed to rules like offensive holding or defensive pass interference, according to an NFL spokesperson. Violations of policies “may result in discipline.”

What the NFL Game Operations Manual says about the anthem

The players do not receive the manual; policies in the manual are enforced by the teams. And the language about the anthem has not changed since 1978. (Perhaps it ought to now.)

What the NFL says about the anthem

The NFL publicly stated last season, when Colin Kaepernick’s protest began, that, “Players are strongly encouraged to stand for the anthem but we respect their right to observe the anthem in this way.” The league said it would not discipline any player that does not stand for the anthem. The league says that will not change.

The NFL spokesperson blames the ongoing confusion around this in part on a shift in 2009. Until 2009, players were always on the field for the national anthem for the daytime Sunday games, but not for the primetime (Sunday Night, Monday Night, Thursday Night) games. For those games, for TV purposes, players would come out onto the field after the anthem played.

In 2009, the NFL spokesperson says, “We decided to make it consistent across all games, as it was the right thing to do.” (Some have suggested the league could end this entire controversy by returning to the old way, where players aren’t on the field for the anthem.)

Of course, regardless of what the policy says, don’t expect people to stop insisting, on social media, that there is a rule requiring players to stand.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-n ... 20168.html

 

[Rocket]

He does not have the "right" to sit. It is not a federal issue, it is in the work place. I am not allowed to go into my job and say anything I want. Now the NFL rule states that the "players should stand", which is very vague but I believe the NFL still could enforce it but are choosing not to. Nothing to do with rights though.

This is what EVERYONE, including the mamby pamby media, is too scared to point out.

He has the right to speak. period. The NFL, the Hawks, they have the right to fire anyone who breaches their contract and/or league rules. They also have the right to support said speech. This is how the whole constitution/legal thing works.

My friend you are conflating things here. The constitution deals with political speech (federally). I can not walk into a private business that I work at and say I hate a said race. You will be fired and it is legal to be fired. I can however say on a phone that I disagree with the politics of a said political party and not result in any repercussions from that, my political expressions/speech is/are protected. That is what the Constitution protects. There is a difference.

We said the same thing... honest. Read 'em again.

You can walk into your place of work and spout hate speech... which some equate to taking an anthem knee. Your employer MAY punish you by suspension or firing or, in football, fine you. Or they MAY not. Their associates, like in federal contracts or advertisers, MAY also punish the employer, or they MAY not.

I know the constitution in the 1st amendment protects you only from congress, but I contend that societal norms have extended this protection to virtually everywhere, save for in the home.

Ergo, Bennett has the right to say it, and the NFL and the Team have a right to wade into the "right" pool. It's a sticky wicket.

 

[hawk45]

If it's not a clear violation of NFL policy than firing a player for this manner of protest might actually be pretty dicey. The NFLPA would certain get involved and it would all become a thing. In that sense I'm not certain the team would escape legal ramifications for firing him, although the ramifications would be around contract law and not around constitutional law. As long as the government isn't the one limiting speech - "Congress shall make no law", etc. - the first amendment is satisfied.

Which is why usually if players make themselves radioactive but haven't quite breached contract, the team may let them go ostensibly for cap or performance reasons, but the team can't go after any money.

All moot anyhow as the Seahawks won't be firing him for this. May affect the calculus of whether or not to retain him in the future, but teams can offer or decline-to-offer contracts for players who are too radioactive to be worth it. First, because it's impossible to prove whether it's that or whether it's cap or performance. Second because it's quite kosher to discriminate based on political views. Those aren't covered under anti-discrimination laws.

 

[SmokinHawk]

Bennett has a right to free speech, but not on his employer's dime. Unfortunately, the Seahawks made the stupid decision to do nothing about it, so now they are locked in to that precedent while this "protest" accelerates the NFL's ultimate decline.

I've loved watching this team throughout the years but I have nothing but contempt for multimillionaires behaving in such an entitled fashion. If there's a time in their lives where they were oppressed, now isn't it.

 

[StoneCold]

Bennett has a right to free speech, but not on his employer's dime. Unfortunately, the Seahawks made the stupid decision to do nothing about it, so now they are locked in to that precedent while this "protest" accelerates the NFL's ultimate decline.

I've loved watching this team throughout the years but I have nothing but contempt for multimillionaires behaving in such an entitled fashion. If there's a time in their lives where they were oppressed, now isn't it.

You are right that it's up to his employers as 1st amendment is about government intrusion on free speech. But you're a bit off in thinking they are protesting against some oppression occurring solely to them at this time in their lives. They are raising awareness of oppression for many who do not have a voice. And for me, that is a worthy cause.

 

[SmokinHawk]

Bennett has a right to free speech, but not on his employer's dime. Unfortunately, the Seahawks made the stupid decision to do nothing about it, so now they are locked in to that precedent while this "protest" accelerates the NFL's ultimate decline.

I've loved watching this team throughout the years but I have nothing but contempt for multimillionaires behaving in such an entitled fashion. If there's a time in their lives where they were oppressed, now isn't it.

You are right that it's up to his employers as 1st amendment is about government intrusion on free speech. But you're a bit off in thinking they are protesting against some oppression occurring solely to them at this time in their lives. They are raising awareness of oppression for many who do not have a voice. And for me, that is a worthy cause.

I'd get behind it if they were protesting something legitimate. Their protest is supported only by the feelings generated by a manipulative media and is not supported by any statistical data. All they are doing is sowing division and harming an American institution enjoyed by millions (the NFL) while perpetuating the false media narratives being spoon fed to them.

 

[Mindsink]

I'd get behind it if they were protesting something legitimate. Their protest is supported only by the feelings generated by a manipulative media and is not supported by any statistical data. All they are doing is sowing division and harming an American institution enjoyed by millions (the NFL) while perpetuating the false media narratives being spoon fed to them.

Agree 100%.

And facts don't care about one's feelings.

 

[RockHawk]

if you want to state that it's a false narrative, maybe provide data from legitimate sources to do so? There's plenty of statistical & circumstantial evidence to support the point of their protests (systemic police brutality). I also find it a bit naive for a white male to judge if systemic racism exists against ethnic groups. I find the argument that those things can't exist because these players are millionaires frustrating. They are doing this because, as StoneCold said, nobody would listen to or hear the voice of the average African American crying out these same issues.

 

[Mindsink]

if you want to state that it's a false narrative, maybe provide data from legitimate sources to do so? There's plenty of statistical & circumstantial evidence to support the point of their protests (systemic police brutality). I also find it a bit naive for a white male to judge if systemic racism exists against ethnic groups.

I would think the onus is on the accuser to present said evidence (of systemic police brutality). Your comment is based on the premise that systemic police brutality is a given, which tells me you're simply parroting the mainstream narrative.