Harmony Central Forums
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

are you ready for some FOOTBALL ?? )

Collapse



X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by guido61 View Post
    . The NBA fine is interesting. Did the player try to fight it in court?
    Not that I am aware of. He was fined and suspended, and eventually compromised with the league and agreed to stand with his teammates during the natonal anthem.

    Rules about speaking to the press and doing other things that don't conflict with your personal religion and creeds is a separate issue. It is completely different for the team to say "you can't write 'down with the USA' on your helmet". It's another thing to say you MUST participate in a team-organized patriotic statement.
    The NBA case was a player who had converted to Islam.

    It's hard for me to believe the courts wouldn't decide that businesses must provide employees the opportunity to opt-out of such things. Regardless of whether they are "good for business" or not.

    My guess is no one has ever taken such a thing to court before?
    Not sure if such a case has been tried, but the courts have been consistent in upholding leagues' rights to enforce player conduct rules.

    . Then he would have made a big deal out of doing so. He had a huge public platform and instead choose to just silently kneel. If the press hadn't gone out of their way to make a big deal out of it, no one would likely even have noticed.
    Uh, no. He was asked about it and spoke rather bluntly about his choice to do so. And only an idiot would have not expected that would be the natural course of his protest.

    It exceeds his authority to suggest businesses fire certain people. Full stop.
    How so? He's speaking an opinion. There is no law that says he can't.

    Did he say that Zimmerman should be convicted? Did he say his boss should fire him?

    Not an great analogy either.
    POTUS is the top law enforcement officer in the USA. Making public comments that make it more difficult to find impartial jurors is ... not good.

    If Trump had simply said "I think these players should stand for the national anthem" it wouldn't be anywhere near as big a deal as it is him suggesting how such players should be dealt with by private businesses.
    Both would still be opinions. They don't carry the force of law.

    And if that what was he had said, then your "Trayvon" analogy would be more spot on.
    Much of the case for Zimmerman had to do with whether or not Martin attacked him. POTUS suggesting that Martin could have been his son is far to influential a statement for a highly public trial already faced with juror impartiality challenges.

    Trump's statement was a controversial opinion about a business/entertainment matter, over which he has no practical authority. Obama's opinion was about a pending criminal matter, and he was the top LEO in the land.

    Both statements were probably unwise. One unfortunate statement related to the president's actual job responsibilities (fair and impartial application of the law). That wasn't Trump. He was just telling a bunch of theater owners he thought they should fire a bunch of their performers.
    Last edited by rbstern; 09-24-2017, 05:34 PM.

    Current global warming temperature trend: 0.05ºC per decade, plus or minus 0.1ºC (source: UN IPCC AR5) ...Yes, the error rate is higher than the estimated rate of change.

    "Anthropogenic global warming is a proposed theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. The growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to CO2 has implications for the attribution of late-20th-century warming and projections of 21st-century climate. If the recent warming hiatus is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability." --Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by rbstern View Post

      Not that I am aware of. He was fined and suspended, and eventually compromised with the league and agreed to stand with his teammates during the natonal anthem.



      The NBA case was a player who had converted to Islam.



      Not sure if such a case has been tried, but the courts have been consistent in upholding leagues' rights to enforce player conduct rules.
      . If it hasn't been tried in court, then it hasn't been tried. If their contracts say something specifically about "participating in all team led activities on the field" or some such, then that's one thing. And even then--forcing someone to participate in something at odds with closely held personal beliefs is different than "conduct rules". Again, the courts have been clear that a religious-based business can't force their employees to participate in a business-led prayer. They have to allow them to opt out. Patriotism isn't religion, but i don't know that it would be THAT much different, legally

      And to the degree the argument might be "well we do it on TV so their non-participation might hurt our business" i believe would be a non-starter.



      Uh, no. He was asked about it and spoke rather bluntly about his choice to do so. And only an idiot would have not expected that would be the natural course of his protest.
      . Actually, he was pretty reluctant to say too much about it at first. It was the press and those who were "!outraged!" by his personal conduct who have made a huge deal out of this.

      And now Trump.


      How so? He's speaking an opinion. There is no law that says he can't.
      .

      Did anyone say it was against the law?

      Look, I understand that Trump fans think the whole idea of a federal government is a big joke beyond fighting wars and keep out immigrants, and they cheer every time Trump makes a mockery of the office. But he has a real responsibility to lead everyone. Not just those he personally agrees with on issues that have nothing to do with the government.

      POTUS is the top law enforcement officer in the USA. Making public comments that make it more difficult to find impartial jurors is ... not good.



      Both would still be opinions. They don't carry the force of law.



      Much of the case for Zimmerman had to do with whether or not Martin attacked him. POTUS suggesting that Martin could have been his son is far to influential a statement for a highly public trial already faced with juror impartiality challenges.

      Trump's statement was a controversial opinion about a business/entertainment matter, over which he has no practical authority. Obama's opinion was about a pending criminal matter, and he was the top LEO in the land.

      Both statements were probably unwise. One unfortunate statement related to the president's actual job responsibilities (fair and impartial application of the law). That wasn't Trump. He was just telling a bunch of theater owners he thought they should fire a bunch of their performers.
      For not living up to his standard of patriotism.

      Isn't that the type of thing that happens in some of those "other" countries?
      ______________

      Comment


      • #48
        What if the networks just stopped airing the national anthem before games? Show another commercial or some more highlights?

        Would too many people have a fit that something "important" wasn't being covered? Maybe even if we didn't force people to display their patriotism on national TV or give them the platform to make a political statement they wouldn't do so or no one would care about their personal beliefs?
        ______________

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by guido61 View Post
          . If it hasn't been tried in court, then it hasn't been tried. If their contracts say something specifically about "participating in all team led activities on the field" or some such, then that's one thing. And even then--forcing someone to participate in something at odds with closely held personal beliefs is different than "conduct rules". Again, the courts have been clear that a religious-based business can't force their employees to participate in a business-led prayer. They have to allow them to opt out. Patriotism isn't religion, but i don't know that it would be THAT much different, legally
          There has been arbitration (contract mandated), and appeals ruled on by the courts of the arbistraton results, nearly always upholding the right of pro sports leagues to enforce conduct rules. Tom Brady's case was the most recent, but not the only example, I think. It went pretty high in the courts.

          And to the degree the argument might be "well we do it on TV so their non-participation might hurt our business" i believe would be a non-starter.
          I don't think you've got that right. There is already contract language in place. The NFL CBA acknowledges and accept's the league's rule book, and as I posted earlier, the league has rules that specifically give it the authority to regulate game-day conduct of the players.

          Actually, he was pretty reluctant to say too much about it at first. It was the press and those who were "!outraged!" by his personal conduct who have made a huge deal out of this.
          If it was as you suggest (a private matter), "No comment," would have been the appropriate response. Or are you saying somebody else has control of his mouth besides him?

          And now Trump.

          Did anyone say it was against the law?

          Look, I understand that Trump fans think the whole idea of a federal government is a big joke beyond fighting wars and keep out immigrants, and they cheer every time Trump makes a mockery of the office. But he has a real responsibility to lead everyone. Not just those he personally agrees with on issues that have nothing to do with the government.

          For not living up to his standard of patriotism.
          You think it was a poor thing for him to say. I don't disagree. Trump is pretty consistent about his communication style. Relative to past presidents, perhaps it's unsettling. He doesn't morph as much as the average pol; either lack of skill or lack of willingness, or both. In some ways, I find it ironically honest, considering he's a carnival barker.

          Isn't that the type of thing that happens in some of those "other" countries?
          Not sure what you mean.
          Last edited by rbstern; 09-24-2017, 06:24 PM.

          Current global warming temperature trend: 0.05ºC per decade, plus or minus 0.1ºC (source: UN IPCC AR5) ...Yes, the error rate is higher than the estimated rate of change.

          "Anthropogenic global warming is a proposed theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. The growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to CO2 has implications for the attribution of late-20th-century warming and projections of 21st-century climate. If the recent warming hiatus is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability." --Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

          Comment


          • #50
            Most stadium ticket sales are sold out well in advance. In some cases 2-3 seasons in advance. If less people show up for actual games it's their loss, not the organizations. Some die hard Trump supporters who also happen to have tickets that he bought well in advance might try and sell his tickets, maybe not. That won't amount to much and either way won't reflect the amount of tickets sold in advance. Ad revenue is expensive and hard to secure for NFL games so for any company pulling out there will be a line several deep to take those spots. Not to mention those spots are bought well in advance as well. This is one ploy where Trump can not win.
            Last edited by Alndln3; 09-24-2017, 07:07 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by rbstern View Post

              There has been arbitration (contract mandated), and appeals ruled on by the courts of the arbistraton results, nearly always upholding the right of pro sports leagues to enforce conduct rules. Tom Brady's case was the most recent, but not the only example, I think. It went pretty high in the courts.
              . But "conduct rules" aren't absolute. Again, a business can't force employees to participate in a business-led prayer. Any "conduct rule" trying to force them to do so would violate federal rules banning such things. I can't really see where forcing employees to stand for the national anthem would be any different.

              I don't think you've got that right. There is already contract language in place. The NFL CBA acknowledges and accept's the league's rule book, and as I posted earlier, the league has rules that specifically give it the authority to regulate game-day conduct of the players.
              . Again. There are limits. They can't try to impose rules that violate federal rules regulating the workplace.

              If it was as you suggest (a private matter), "No comment," would have been the appropriate response. Or are you saying somebody else has control of his mouth besides him?
              He can't speak out about private matters when asked? There's a difference between being asked and purposely trying to make a public statement.


              You think it was a poor thing for him to say. I don't disagree. Trump is pretty consistent about his communication style. Relative to past presidents, perhaps it's unsettling. He doesn't morph as much as the average pol; either lack of skill or lack of willingness, or both. In some ways, I find it ironically honest, considering he's a carnival barker.
              "Honesty" is no excuse for inappropriateness. In fact, it only makes it worse if you're POTUS.



              Not sure what you mean.
              The leader of a country suggesting people in a private workplace salute the flag or be fired?

              With what sort of countries/leaders/governments do you most associate such behavior?
              ______________

              Comment


              • #52
                These nationalistic racist chuckleheads will talk a big talk about boycotting the NFL...but as soon as their team starts winning and looks like they'll make it to the playoffs, they'll be watching/going to every game they can.

                Comment


                • willhaven
                  willhaven commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Sounds like never Trumpers in the first few months after the election.

                  And then the winning stopped...
                  Last edited by willhaven; 09-24-2017, 10:36 PM.

              • #53
                Originally posted by Alndln3 View Post
                Most stadium ticket sales are sold out in advance. If less people show up for actual games it's their loss, not the organizations. Some die hard Trump supporters who also happen to have tickets that he bought well in advance might try and sell his tickets, maybe not. That won't amount to much and either way won't reflect the amount of tickets sold in advance. Ad revenue is expensive and hard to secure for NFL games so for any company pulling out there will be a line several deep to take those spots. Not to mention those spots are bought well in advance as well. This is one ploy where Trump can not win.
                Merchandise sales: Over $4 billion a year. $295 replica jerseys don't sell themselves, and they don't sell when the player wearing that jersey is pissing off fans.

                Empty stadium seats mean lower concession sales. The easiest way to lose a $10 beer sale is to not have a beer drinker show up on game day.

                No matter who buys the ad slot, ad revenue is driven by ratings. If the ratings suffer, ad revenues decline, and the value of the TV contract doesn't pay back against the long term investment that the TV network made, which threatens the next network deal.

                NFL has very large revenue growth plans, and the social issues make those goals difficult to sustain. Since it's billions of dollars in future sales at stake, you can bet they sweat it.


                Current global warming temperature trend: 0.05ºC per decade, plus or minus 0.1ºC (source: UN IPCC AR5) ...Yes, the error rate is higher than the estimated rate of change.

                "Anthropogenic global warming is a proposed theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. The growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to CO2 has implications for the attribution of late-20th-century warming and projections of 21st-century climate. If the recent warming hiatus is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability." --Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

                Comment


                • #54
                  Originally posted by rbstern View Post

                  Merchandise sales: Over $4 billion a year. $295 replica jerseys don't sell themselves, and they don't sell when the player wearing that jersey is pissing off fans.

                  Empty stadium seats mean lower concession sales. The easiest way to lose a $10 beer sale is to not have a beer drinker show up on game day.

                  No matter who buys the ad slot, ad revenue is driven by ratings. If the ratings suffer, ad revenues decline, and the value of the TV contract doesn't pay back against the long term investment that the TV network made, which threatens the next network deal.

                  NFL has very large revenue growth plans, and the social issues make those goals difficult to sustain. Since it's billions of dollars in future sales at stake, you can bet they sweat it.
                  NFL Viewership was down in 2016, but game attendance was up 3%.

                  And while viewership was down 8% in 2016, that wasn't out of line with declines in sports viewership across the board.

                  Meanwhile, the NFL remains the nation's most popular sport and one of the most popular broadcasts on TV.

                  Any predictions of the networks not being able to get as much money for ad space for paying the NFL less to show games in the future would be very premature at this point.

                  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-are-way-down/
                  ______________

                  Comment


                  • #55
                    Originally posted by guido61 View Post

                    NFL Viewership was down in 2016, but game attendance was up 3%.

                    And while viewership was down 8% in 2016, that wasn't out of line with declines in sports viewership across the board.

                    Meanwhile, the NFL remains the nation's most popular sport and one of the most popular broadcasts on TV.

                    Any predictions of the networks not being able to get as much money for ad space for paying the NFL less to show games in the future would be very premature at this point.

                    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-are-way-down/

                    Did you read that entire article? It's not a pretty picture.

                    The NFL has aggressive growth plans. Backwards is not in their plans and will upset the apple cart.

                    Current global warming temperature trend: 0.05ºC per decade, plus or minus 0.1ºC (source: UN IPCC AR5) ...Yes, the error rate is higher than the estimated rate of change.

                    "Anthropogenic global warming is a proposed theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. The growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to CO2 has implications for the attribution of late-20th-century warming and projections of 21st-century climate. If the recent warming hiatus is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability." --Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

                    Comment


                    • #56
                      Originally posted by rbstern View Post


                      Did you read that entire article? It's not a pretty picture.

                      The NFL has aggressive growth plans. Backwards is not in their plans and will upset the apple cart.
                      Yes I did read the entire article. And if you did you'd understand there are way too many variables to put it all on "taking the knee". It also put some doubt towards that poll you linked earlier regarding how many people were not watching games because of the protests.

                      Long term goals are just that. This is a big deal this week. We will see where we are at the next time the NFL contracts come up.

                      The NFL, like everyone else in the entertainment business, face new and constant challenges. Their TV ratings would likely be declining regardless in the current environment. Do you want to blame these protests for the decline in cable and satellite subscriptions too?
                      ______________

                      Comment


                      • #57
                        Originally posted by guido61 View Post
                        . But "conduct rules" aren't absolute. Again, a business can't force employees to participate in a business-led prayer. Any "conduct rule" trying to force them to do so would violate federal rules banning such things. I can't really see where forcing employees to stand for the national anthem would be any different.
                        I think an easy case can be made that protest gestures fall within the authority of the league to regulate. The rule book stipulates it. Kneeling when a player would normally be standing (only the audience is asked to stand, the players are usually standing already) is pretty clearly a protest. Given that more players are now doing it, to great noteriety and their own admission that it is in solidarity with the player who started it, it's clear it is a political expression. I believe the league has the contractual authority to prohibit that behavior.

                        Again. There are limits. They can't try to impose rules that violate federal rules regulating the workplace.
                        Of course there are limits. The specifics matter. See above. See history of professional sports leagues' ability to control player's personal and political expressions during league events.

                        He can't speak out about private matters when asked? There's a difference between being asked and purposely trying to make a public statement.
                        Of course he can. But you can't claim he was trying to be covert about it, when clearly he wasn't.

                        "Honesty" is no excuse for inappropriateness. In fact, it only makes it worse if you're POTUS.
                        Yeah, well, he's president and we're not, so he gets to make his own choices, and all that's left for us is this forum.

                        The leader of a country suggesting people in a private workplace salute the flag or be fired?

                        With what sort of countries/leaders/governments do you most associate such behavior?
                        Well, if you are referring to the places where people get arrested and shot for such things, I'm not sure the comparison is apt.

                        Current global warming temperature trend: 0.05ºC per decade, plus or minus 0.1ºC (source: UN IPCC AR5) ...Yes, the error rate is higher than the estimated rate of change.

                        "Anthropogenic global warming is a proposed theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. The growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to CO2 has implications for the attribution of late-20th-century warming and projections of 21st-century climate. If the recent warming hiatus is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability." --Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

                        Comment


                        • #58
                          We could just do away with it. I don't see how it relates to sports anyway. After it was found out the NFL was paid by the government for "patriotic displays" such as flyovers to push recruitment, it's hard to take any cries about patriotism in any kind of genuine way.

                          Comment


                          • #59
                            Originally posted by rbstern View Post

                            I think an easy case can be made that protest gestures fall within the authority of the league to regulate. The rule book stipulates it. Kneeling when a player would normally be standing (only the audience is asked to stand, the players are usually standing already) is pretty clearly a protest. Given that more players are now doing it, to great noteriety and their own admission that it is in solidarity with the player who started it, it's clear it is a political expression. I believe the league has the contractual authority to prohibit that behavior.
                            The difference is that the "protest", in this case, is a refusal to participate. The league can prevent them from putting "BLM" on their jerseys. Can they force them to stand for the anthem?

                            I'm going say the courts would say "no". If the "kneel" is the issue, would fans be OK with them leaving the field? I'm going to guess no.




                            Of course there are limits. The specifics matter. See above. See history of professional sports leagues' ability to control player's personal and political expressions during league events.
                            and you're saying they can force them to participate in a political expression. There is no precedent for that.



                            Of course he can. But you can't claim he was trying to be covert about it, when clearly he wasn't.
                            . "Covert"? No. Why should he be? I didn't claim he was. But he wasn't trying to be "in your face" about it which is what you are claiming. He was keeping it to himself until the press forced the issue.



                            Yeah, well, he's president and we're not, so he gets to make his own choices, and all that's left for us is this forum.
                            you find his choices of expression "honest" and seem supportive of them. But Kaepernick, et als choices are somehow deserving of contempt?

                            Personally, Id hold the POTUS to a higher standard than NFL players.

                            Well, if you are referring to the places where people get arrested and shot for such things, I'm not sure the comparison is apt.
                            Where did it begin for those places? With a leader who demanded such loyalty and patriotism and a good percentage of the public who agreed, perhaps?
                            ______________

                            Comment


                            • #60
                              Originally posted by guido61 View Post
                              The difference is that the "protest", in this case, is a refusal to participate. The league can prevent them from putting "BLM" on their jerseys. Can they force them to stand for the anthem?

                              I'm going say the courts would say "no". If the "kneel" is the issue, would fans be OK with them leaving the field? I'm going to guess no.
                              On the rare occasions I'm in a church, I do as the regulars do (standing, sitting, moment of silence, etc.). I am not praying or observing their religion. Standing around (as opposed to a deliberate gesture designed to show objection) is not forced participation.

                              and you're saying they can force them to participate in a political expression. There is no precedent for that.
                              No. I'm saying that it's within the leagues authority to fine players who engage in obvious acts of protest.

                              . "Covert"? No. Why should he be? I didn't claim he was. But he wasn't trying to be "in your face" about it which is what you are claiming. He was keeping it to himself until the press forced the issue.
                              How can that be "keeping it to himself?" He's in showbiz. He's on a grass covered stage with dozens of cameras pointed in his direction, hundreds of media eyes on him, and millions of fans watching. Nothing he does out there is "private." For you to suggest it is laughable.

                              By the way: You do know that his girlfriend is a big activist and was publicly stoking the fires of this controversy from day 1?

                              you find his choices of expression "honest" and seem supportive of them. But Kaepernick, et als choices are somehow deserving of contempt?
                              Never said that about Kaepernick. What I'm saying: It's bad for business.

                              Personally, Id hold the POTUS to a higher standard than NFL players.
                              No way Trump can run a 4.40 forty. Not even in his prime.

                              Where did it begin for those places? With a leader who demanded such loyalty and patriotism and a good percentage of the public who agreed, perhaps?
                              Now you sound like the righties who swore Obama would declare marshall law on January 20th, 2016.

                              Current global warming temperature trend: 0.05ºC per decade, plus or minus 0.1ºC (source: UN IPCC AR5) ...Yes, the error rate is higher than the estimated rate of change.

                              "Anthropogenic global warming is a proposed theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. The growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to CO2 has implications for the attribution of late-20th-century warming and projections of 21st-century climate. If the recent warming hiatus is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability." --Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

                              Comment













                              Working...
                              X