Not impressed with the hands up BS displayed by the Rams WRs

[fearsomefour]

My point though was that the NFL deciding to stay clear of the issue (though I don't know if it was wise... a precedent has been established to allow more dragging political and/or racial controversy into the game without consequence) was what allowed the players to say what they wanted in the stadium and in uniform.

Constitutional freedom of speech really isn't part of the conversation here.

Dont disagree.
The NFL will probably have that mandated through the franchises.

 

[RamFan503]

Meh, probably, but it opens up a lot of potential issues. If they fine players for this, what's to stop them from fining former GSOT players whenever they mention funny business during the SB. A few have before, and you know there would be an uproar here if they did. They could use the same excuse though, protecting their image and staying out of controversy.

Not the same at all. If they made some anti-NFL gesture while in uniform or came out after a game and directly commented that the fix was in then they would undoubtedly be fined and/or suspended just as if they came out and bitched about the referees. Also being that none of the former GSOT players are still playing, the NFL wouldn't have any standing to fine them.

At any rate, nobody gave a crap about Bailey putting his hands up when he put up over 100 yards in the first quarter, nobody will give a crap a month from now, the NFL knows this. Easier to just forget about it.

And that's a fact jack.

 

[Rabid Ram]

I think cColin ccowherd said it best this morning everyone screams for players to "stay in their lane" yet those screaming it are constantly out of their lane.

This thread being a good proof of that. Many people jumping out of their lane(profession) to qquicklyand vvehemently give their opinion/pprotest to the act. Yet the players aren't allowedto hhave their own opinion

I don't agree with their opinion im just not complaining about having to see people express a different opinion than mine.

If anything I'm more upset with the St Louis police committe that is up iin arms and ddemanding am apology from the NFL Last iI checked it was their job to maintain peace not start a firestorm

 

[Athos]

Wrong.
There is a huge difference between the "protesters", who the WRs were supporting, and the "rioters" who are causing all the damage.

Why is it so hard for people to make this simple distinction?

Makes it easier to play the blame game while taking the "holier than thou" route.

 

[Boffo97]

I think cColin ccowherd said it best this morning everyone screams for players to "stay in their lane" yet those screaming it are constantly out of their lane.

This thread being a good proof of that. Many people jumping out of their lane(profession) to qquicklyand vvehemently give their opinion/pprotest to the act. Yet the players aren't allowedto hhave their own opinion

I don't agree with their opinion im just not complaining about having to see people express a different opinion than mine.

If anything I'm more upset with the St Louis police committe that is up iin arms and ddemanding am apology from the NFL Last iI checked it was their job to maintain peace not start a firestorm

It would only be us "being out of our lane" if we were making political statements while on the job and representing our employer.

Players are allowed to have their own opinion. But to give such an opinion while representing the St. Louis Rams, and to a lesser extent the city of St. Louis, I absolutely disagree that the police were wrong to demand an apology.

 

[12intheBox]

Should NFL players keep their opinions to themselves on all issues - or only on the ones that we don't find bothersome?

Is it OK to wear red white and blue socks to show support for our troops? Of course it is - we like that opinion.

Is it OK for players to pray together after the game? Of course - as long as its to the right God. If its to the wrong God, then no - its not OK.

 

[Boffo97]

Should NFL players keep their opinions to themselves on all issues - or only on the ones that we don't find bothersome?

Is it OK to wear red white and blue socks to show support for our troops? Of course it is - we like that opinion.

Is it OK for players to pray together after the game? Of course - as long as its to the right God. If its to the wrong God, then no - its not OK.

Actually the NFL would punish players for wearing inappropriate socks... a while back, the Rams were getting fines for that all the time.

And if someone wanted to pray to Allah or whoever else in the prayer circle, I doubt anyone would even know.

So no, it's not a matter of what opinion we like or dislike. It's the matter that the these players, while representing the team, took a stance against law enforcement and those who sympathize with them and as a result some people who were fans of the team feel betrayed.

If they wanted to use their Twitter or an interview to express whatever stance they wanted to, the police wouldn't be demanding an apology because they'd be speaking only for themselves and in an appropriate manner. It's easy to have no problem with what the players did when you agree with their opinion anyway.

 

[iced]

It would only be us "being out of our lane" if we were making political statements while on the job and representing our employer.

So do you consider it "out of our lane" when a soldier makes opposing statements against the president? (Can't tell you how many times I heard such things on deployment)

or how about when a veteran calls out the president?

 

[Boffo97]

So do you consider it "out of our lane" when a soldier makes opposing statements against the president? (Can't tell you how many times I heard such things on deployment)

or how about when a veteran calls out the president?

If a soldier appeared in uniform on TV badmouthing the President's policy, he very well COULD get in trouble. 1st Amendment wouldn't protect him. Doing so just talking to fellow soldiers, probably not.

And a veteran, definitely not. He's not on the job.

I think that's the answer to that question... the "out of our lane" metaphor is a little silly. And by a little, I mean a lot.

 

[RamFan503]

Should NFL players keep their opinions to themselves on all issues - or only on the ones that we don't find bothersome?

Is it OK to wear red white and blue socks to show support for our troops? Of course it is - we like that opinion.

Is it OK for players to pray together after the game? Of course - as long as its to the right God. If its to the wrong God, then no - its not OK.

Opine all they want - just not in uniform or at a game representing their team without prior team approval.

No it's actually not ok to wear said socks without league approval. It is specifically against the rules.

I'm not sure what the rules are as to the players praying together after the game. So I couldn't answer that. Pretty sure there is no "right God" wording anywhere though and I've never heard anyone say that they weren't allowed to pray to their deity.

 

[iced]

If a soldier appeared in uniform on TV badmouthing the President's policy, he very well COULD get in trouble. 1st Amendment wouldn't protect him. Doing so just talking to fellow soldiers, probably not.

Speaking ill of the Commode in chief,especially in a formal session, will result you in prison time...and if say you were doing in a sense to cause a mutiny during a time of war,i believe could result in death... Either way, little more incentive to act appropriately.

Actually the rules for soldiers are very harsh when it comes to public relations - for example,I knew a girl who had been pulled over speeding not far from the base. Apparently in the car with the officer was a camera crew for one of those reality shows. They offered to pay for her ticket (Which was probably around $200-300 since she was speeding pretty fast) if she would sign a waiver should they decide if they wanted to air it or not....Needless to say, she gladly took the ticket - because if she had done so and appeared on tv, she would have lost a lot more than $2000,rank, and spent time on restriction - and if she was lucky she wouldn't have been discharged after that. Not all branches are as harsh, but the Navy was. (For example the Army and Marines allowed multiple strikes for drugs, like 2 or 3x - Navy and Air force are zero tolerance.)

And a veteran, definitely not. He's not on the job.

I think that's the answer to that question... the "out of our lane" metaphor is a little silly. And by a little, I mean a lot.

I don't believe what the Ram's receivers did/have done merit any punishment or things that people have said on here. They are kids, and to be quite honest with everything I know about the Law and being extremely exposed to it (Father's a lawyer), really makes me question the facts and the process of the case. I'm not taking sides on either side, but what I've seen about both sides - especially given how the DA presented the case to the Grand Jury. You don't do that unless you're trying to hide something...

Kinda reminds me of when one of my Command Master Chief's who got popped for 6th DUI, especially at a time when the punishment was maxed out for a minimum DUI (you know,no property damage/no one hurt, etc).... When Regiment Commode got wind of that (Which would be the equivalent of the DA's boss's boss), well needless to say The entire base was called to ranks and the announcement was made (just not who it was,but everyone in our command knew who it was 2 days prior) - believe he was forced retired and we quickly had a new CMC (Which i was greatful for, one of the best leaders i ever met)

 

[RamFan503]

So do you consider it "out of our lane" when a soldier makes opposing statements against the president? (Can't tell you how many times I heard such things on deployment)

or how about when a veteran calls out the president?

I believe the former can be a punishable offense if my cousin is correct in relaying one such event in Somalia - and I don't have any reason to believe he made it up. Not having been in the military myself, I don't know how much is just allowed. But my understanding is that anything construed as siding against the Commode in Chief would be insubordination. To that:

Service members are not allowed to treat their superiors with disrespect. This can include anything from failing to properly salute the superior officer to describing the superior officer with obscene language to openly mocking the superior officer. Truth is not a defense -- in other words, a subordinate can be punished even if the insults described in the disrespectful behavior are true. Service members should respect their superiors whether they are superior in command or in rank. However, if a service member falls above an officer of higher rank in the chain of command, she may not be punished for treating a superior officer with disrespect.

The insubordinate service member does not need to be in the presence of her superior officer in order to disrespect the superior officer. However, the service member cannot be punished for the contents of a purely private conversation.

Defenses to Insubordination

Insubordination is a serious crime that can result in a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay, or any punishment other than death. There are a few defenses a service member may assert in the face of an insubordination charge:

• The accused did not know the other person was a superior officer;
• The accused was acting to discharge another lawful duty; or
• The superior officer acted in such a way that made the superior officer lose the right to be respected. For example, if a superior officer attacked a subordinate, the subordinate would be within her rights to strike the officer in defense.

Above reference found at: http://military.findlaw.com

 

[-X-]

See, this is kind of what I was talking about with regard to support in the community and the backlash the receivers may have caused.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ut-sports-bar-stops-supporting-rams/19773415/

 

[blackbart]

So do you consider it "out of our lane" when a soldier makes opposing statements against the president? (Can't tell you how many times I heard such things on deployment)

or how about when a veteran calls out the president?

When the president gets out of line the veteran has a duty to call him out.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Not the same at all. If they made some anti-NFL gesture while in uniform or came out after a game and directly commented that the fix was in then they would undoubtedly be fined and/or suspended just as if they came out and bitched about the referees. Also being that none of the former GSOT players are still playing, the NFL wouldn't have any standing to fine them.



And that's a fact jack.

Warner and Faulk are still on the NFL payroll, aren't they? Or is NFLN different?

 

[bluecoconuts]

I believe the former can be a punishable offense if my cousin is correct in relaying one such event in Somalia - and I don't have any reason to believe he made it up. Not having been in the military myself, I don't know how much is just allowed. But my understanding is that anything construed as siding against the Commode in Chief would be insubordination. To that:

Service members are not allowed to treat their superiors with disrespect. This can include anything from failing to properly salute the superior officer to describing the superior officer with obscene language to openly mocking the superior officer. Truth is not a defense -- in other words, a subordinate can be punished even if the insults described in the disrespectful behavior are true. Service members should respect their superiors whether they are superior in command or in rank. However, if a service member falls above an officer of higher rank in the chain of command, she may not be punished for treating a superior officer with disrespect.

The insubordinate service member does not need to be in the presence of her superior officer in order to disrespect the superior officer. However, the service member cannot be punished for the contents of a purely private conversation.

Defenses to Insubordination

Insubordination is a serious crime that can result in a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay, or any punishment other than death. There are a few defenses a service member may assert in the face of an insubordination charge:

• The accused did not know the other person was a superior officer;
• The accused was acting to discharge another lawful duty; or
• The superior officer acted in such a way that made the superior officer lose the right to be respected. For example, if a superior officer attacked a subordinate, the subordinate would be within her rights to strike the officer in defense.

Above reference found at: http://military.findlaw.com

It's specifically against UCMJ for an officer to badmouth the president at any time. Enlisted its a bit different, the punishment anyway. Officers can get the book thrown at them, enlisted, would be an NJP.

 

[Dieter the Brock]

See, this is kind of what I was talking about with regard to support in the community and the backlash the receivers may have caused.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ut-sports-bar-stops-supporting-rams/19773415/

Time Out Bar and Grill is in the Parthenon of RamFandom and is synonymous with the heart and soul of this team

we may never recover ....

 

[12intheBox]

We are talking about sports, right?

No one has appointed any of the Rams ambassadors or made them members of some cabinet, right?

As far as I'm concerned, if fans jump ship because the Rams players expressed their opinions in uniform, then the Rams are better off with that fickle weight shed.

I'll admit that I'm biased though - I'm a pretty staunch defender of the constitution, of our liberty interests, and of each of our rights to live free - so that may be playing into my feelings on this issue a tad.

 

[RamFan503]

Warner and Faulk are still on the NFL payroll, aren't they? Or is NFLN different?

I believe the NFLN is owned by the NFL. That being said, two things occur to me. Would the NFLN allow them to make this kind of a "statement"? I'm guessing not. The other is - as Warner and Faulk are in a position of giving their opinions and observations (that is their job), it seems to me that commenting on this from their personal perspective would be completely different. And even then if the camera panned over to them and they were giving that gesture, I'm going to guess their time in front of a microphone would be drastically decreased.

 

[RamFan503]

Time Out Bar and Grill is in the Parthenon of RamFandom and is synonymous with the heart and soul of this team

we may never recover ....

And that was his point? Great retort.