New Anthem Policy and other changes

[RiverDog]

Several significant changes came about in the recently concluded spring owners meetings:

The most controversial was the anthem policy. The highlights are: All players (as well as every other NFL employee) that are on the field must stand and show disrespect during the playing of the anthem. Players may choose, without fear of being disciplined, remain in the locker room during the anthem. The policy was unanimous amongst the 32 owners and the union was not consulted.

Second, IMO, were significant changes to the kickoff, the highlights of which that kick coverage teams must line up no more than one yard behind the ball, there are several rather complicated rules implemented regarding kick return blocking, and any ball that hits the ground in the end zone is an automatic touchback.

They also approved safety rules and the allowance of gambling activities (see related topics in this forum), expanded use of instant replay, the transfer of ownership of the Carolina Panthers, and the sites of two future Super Bowls (New Orleans and Glendale).

[c_hawkbob]

The most controversial was the anthem policy. The highlights are: All players (as well as every other NFL employee) that are on the field must stand and show disrespect during the playing of the anthem. Players may choose, without fear of being disciplined, remain in the locker room during the anthem. The policy was unanimous amongst the 32 owners and the union was not consulted.

I think the league would have been better served to go back to not having the players come out onto the field until after the anthem. this could backfire on them, that would have simply deleted the issue.

[Rambo2014]

LOL Looks like your #89 guy will e your "Designated Squatter" for this season.

Good Luck with That

GO RAMS

[HumanCockroach]

Oh, you're talking about the pro bowl top ten receiver guy in Seattle?

Took me a moment, thought perhaps Seattle had gone back to the Rams high pick, or trade, little production type receivers where the number was the only thing distinguishing them instead of actual play.

Carry on Ramblo.

[RiverDog]

I think the league would have been better served to go back to not having the players come out onto the field until after the anthem. this could backfire on them, that would have simply deleted the issue.

I agree completely. The owners wanted to have their cake and eat it, too. There is a certain value to them to have those televised sideline shots of players and coaches "standing proudly" during the playing of the anthem. Doing so helps promote this image they want to project, that 100% of their players and coaches are as pure as the wind driven snow, as American as mom, apple pie, and the girl next door in order to promote their product. But they knew that they would have opened a can of worms had they made it a requirement without giving the players an alternative if they chose not to adhere.

Now they've created a situation where the press can and will report on those players that opted to stay in the locker room and continue to have their protests publicized. We'll see television shots right after the commercial break following the anthem of Michael Bennett and others trotting onto the field just prior to kickoff. All the owners did was change the way in which some of their players protest, they did not eliminate it. Had they required the entire team to stay in the locker room, they could have effectively prohibited all forms of protests while they were engaged in their work (like millions of us have to do) and put the issue to bed.

[NorthHawk]

Not only that, but it's now being said there was no vote at all, just a poll if this article is correct.
We know that Davis in Oakland and York in SF abstained and Johnson of the Jets has come out against the statement by the NFL by saying he would pay for any fine his team incurred, so who knows how much support they really have?

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... hem-issue/

[Aseahawkfan]

Now we'll have lists of players not taking the field. Yay. Then people will hammer on them and find new reasons to complain about them lacking respect or what not. The media will further inflame the divide by bombarding us with "white" vs. "black" (as though either of these names really suffice to define people and nations that the the moniker is applied to) rhetoric all because a group of idiots decided to define the world by the color of a person's skin and some slightly different physical characteristics that hundreds of years later we can't seem to get past. It's amazing one dumb, immoral, evil decision can alter the world for centuries preventing a nation with an incredible foundational philosophy from being what it should be.

I guess another year of the media getting ratings due to the anthem issue with both sides engaging in a useless debate about the anthem rather than fixing the underlying issues that caused the protest in the first place.

As far as the rest of it, I guess we'll see what kickoffs look like now. I guess the great kick return records will stand for all time with the kickoff becoming something they're trying to eliminate.

[RiverDog]

The more I look at this policy, the worse it looks. It gives teams an option to form their own policy of which could result in
vast discrepancies as to how this will be implemented. They really stepped in it big time

[Aseahawkfan]

Roger Goodel is an idiot. I don't know how he keeps his job. He must be a yes man to some group of important owners.

[RiverDog]

Roger Goodel is an idiot. I don't know how he keeps his job. He must be a yes man to some group of important owners.

This wasn't Goodell's work. From my understanding, he was against any change in policy at all. This was an exclusively owners initative. Goodell doesn't even have a vote on the matter.

[Aseahawkfan]

This wasn't Goodell's work. From my understanding, he was against any change in policy at all. This was an exclusively owners initative. Goodell doesn't even have a vote on the matter.

Are you sure? It sounded like the league office polled the owners and called it a vote? Which owners pushed this and pretended they had a real vote?

[HumanCockroach]

Eh, we'll see what happens when both teams refuse to be on the sideline over some other moronic thing this country does...

Until then, whatever, never sided either way, firm believer in each person expressing their freedom however they want within reason. If they don't break laws, endanger me and mine, do what ever it is that floats your boat. Simply can't understand what is so "polarizing" about freedom, whether on the field or not, one way or the other. Kind of the whole point of America. Why anyone takes issue is something I simply can't grasp, no matter how hard I attempt to.

[RiverDog]

Are you sure? It sounded like the league office polled the owners and called it a vote? Which owners pushed this and pretended they had a real vote?

Goodell would never allow himself to be quoted as taking a stance against so many owners, but there is this:

My sense is that Goodell largely stayed out of the way because everyone had a different viewpoint, influenced by a ton of different factors from politics to geography to the business impact the anthem debate had on each individual owner’s team. This was very much the owners’ show.

Sorry I don't have a link. It was from the New York Times.

Jerry Jones was the primary driver behind the anthem policy.

[NorthHawk]

Yah, that sounds like a Jerry move.

Interesting to note that Kaepernick's lawyer says the President and Vice President broke the law by pressuring the NFL to change it's policy.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... hem-issue/

Part of the article:

As noted on Thursday by LawAndCrime.com, attorney Mark Geragos suggested in a Thursday tweet that efforts of the top two members of the executive branch to pressure the NFL to force players to stand for the anthem potentially run afoul of Title 18, Section 227 of the United States Code. A violation of 18 U.S.C. 227 arises if the President and/or the Vice President intended “to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity” and “influence[d], or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another.”

[burrrton]

Interesting to note that Kaepernick's lawyer says the President and Vice President broke the law by pressuring the NFL to change it's policy.

He's going to pull a hamstring stretching like that unless he wants to argue respect for the flag is a partisan issue.

[NorthHawk]

I don't know.
The law is often interpreted differently than what many would think is obvious.
But I guess we should expect the lawyers to make a presence.

[burrrton]

I don't know.
The law is often interpreted differently than what many would think is obvious.
But I guess we should expect the lawyers to make a presence.

True, but even if they can find a judge sympathetic to such an absurd argument (to be fair, might not be too tough with the arousal Trump provides so many), nothing is going to be done to a sitting POTUS over such a triviality (or, hell, even if it wasn't trivial).

As you say, this is 100% some lawyer trying to grab air time.

[Aseahawkfan]

Goodell would never allow himself to be quoted as taking a stance against so many owners, but there is this:

My sense is that Goodell largely stayed out of the way because everyone had a different viewpoint, influenced by a ton of different factors from politics to geography to the business impact the anthem debate had on each individual owner’s team. This was very much the owners’ show.

Sorry I don't have a link. It was from the New York Times.

Jerry Jones was the primary driver behind the anthem policy.

This is a league policy voted on by the owners and Goodel did nothing? I don't know that I buy that. Then it seems we don't have solid information at the moment, just innuendo. Apparently some owners wanted to make it clear there was no vote and some that they abstained or disagreed with this "unanimous" vote.

Goodel is still an idiot. The man gets paid to handle situations like this. You're saying he's getting pushed around and can't control what is for all intents and purposes a lie about a unanimous owner vote.

[c_hawkbob]

I'm hearing this morning that there was no actual vote, that there was a pole of the owners asking how they'd likely vote if there were one and the commish ran with that.

[NorthHawk]

I'm hearing this morning that there was no actual vote, that there was a pole of the owners asking how they'd likely vote if there were one and the commish ran with that.

It seems it wasn't voted on and Johnson of the Jets doesn't agree with it as well both Davis and York abstained from the poll.
We really don't know how a formal vote would end up or if others also refused to answer the poll, but it seems the power brokers in the NFL pushed their viewpoint to get what they wanted.

[RiverDog]

"Interesting to note that Kaepernick's lawyer says the President and Vice President broke the law by pressuring the NFL to change it's policy."

He's going to pull a hamstring stretching like that unless he wants to argue respect for the flag is a partisan issue."

Yea, saying it's a stretch is an understatement. All Trump did was express his opinion. He didn't so much as imply a threat of repercussions if they didn't heed his advice.

[RiverDog]

This is a league policy voted on by the owners and Goodel did nothing? I don't know that I buy that. Then it seems we don't have solid information at the moment, just innuendo. Apparently some owners wanted to make it clear there was no vote and some that they abstained or disagreed with this "unanimous" vote.

Goodel is still an idiot. The man gets paid to handle situations like this. You're saying he's getting pushed around and can't control what is for all intents and purposes a lie about a unanimous owner vote.

I'm no Roger Goodell fan, but you're giving him a bum rap if you're assigning any blame to him for this policy. The worse thing he did was to misreport the vote. Goodell is subservient to the owners. The best he could have done would have been to try and talk them out of it.

[c_hawkbob]

I disagree. They aren't paying him $30M a year to simply be a figurehead. At the very least he failed to appraise them of what a poor move this was, and at worst he pushed it through at the behest of a few owners that felt very strongly about it.

This story was effectively dead, the NFL has no one to blame but themselves for resurrecting it again. At a time when legalized sports betting should be dominating the media landscape they've put Colin Cappernick and the President's tweets front and center again ... and Goodell, deservedly, is going to take the hit for it IMO. I think his days as Commish may well be numbered.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm no Roger Goodell fan, but you're giving him a bum rap if you're assigning any blame to him for this policy. The worse thing he did was to misreport the vote. Goodell is subservient to the owners. The best he could have done would have been to try and talk them out of it.

I have to agree with c-bob. Goodel is the face of the NFL and gets well-paid to do so. If this thing isn't his doing and some power group within the owners is end arounding him, he needs to get that organized. Who supports him now? I heard he had powerful support from key owners to hold his position at that pay. So what's up? Why do all the owners seen be on different pages at the moment? Is there an information leak he isn't handling? Is he not talking with the owners that pay him? Who designed the policy? This is not going well and Goodel needs to get this righted. It's literally his job. If I paid you 30 million plus a year, wouldn't it be your job to make sure the NFL brand's message is consistent?

[RiverDog]

Here's the link to the NYT article I referred to earlier:

By appearances anyway, the N.F.L. was one big family two weeks ago. After President Trump urged owners to fire players who did not stand for the national anthem, everyone from Commissioner Roger Goodell to the 32 team owners to the players and coaches locked arms, in many cases literally, in defiance and unity.

That unanimity has all but vanished. As the president continues to harangue the league over the anthem, and a number of fans across the country express displeasure with the handful of players who continue to kneel during the anthem, a growing pool of owners is trying to defuse the politically charged issue, even if it means confronting the players the owners previously sympathized with.

One of the most powerful owners in the league is now speaking openly about benching players who do not stand for the anthem, and Goodell, who said previously that players had a right to voice their opinions, is siding with the owners opposed to letting the players demonstrate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/spor ... eling.html

This is NOT of Goodell's doing. You can blame him for not having the balls to stand up for what he supposedly believed in, for abandoning the players, for caving in by not standing up to Jerry Jones, the POTUS, and the millions of fans that have expressed displeasure at the anthem protests, but you can't blame him for advancing this policy. IMO Goodell is reading the handwriting on the wall and knows he'd be on the losing side of the argument if he attempts to stand in the way of the owners, the majority of whom are highly motivated to do something about the protests. He'd have to threaten to resign if he were to try to change the owner's minds, so he chose the path of least resistance.

Having said that, there is little doubt that Goodell botched this issue big time.

[c_hawkbob]

That article is from October of last year.

[RiverDog]

So has anything changed since then?

[c_hawkbob]

Yes! By December it was a non story. There were only a handful of players league wide that were kneeling (instead of a handful on each team) and the league and it's fans were back interested in who was or wasn't going to make the playoffs and other than Papa John getting fired over it or a pot stirrer like Florio bring it up on his radio show at 5 AM nobody was even talking about the issue.

Then just as a real story with enough legs to keep it out of the national consciousness through the offseason comes along this monumental brain fart puts it all right back on center stage again ... it was a ridiculously bad move with questionable support and not near enough cautionary counselling from the guy who's specific responsibility it to "protect the shield" at all costs.

[RiverDog]

Yes! By December it was a non story. There were only a handful of players league wide that were kneeling (instead of a handful on each team) and the league and it's fans were back interested in who was or wasn't going to make the playoffs and other than Papa John getting fired over it or a pot stirrer like Florio bring it up on his radio show at 5 AM nobody was even talking about the issue.

Then just as a real story with enough legs to keep it out of the national consciousness through the offseason comes along this monumental brain fart puts it all right back on center stage again ... it was a ridiculously bad move with questionable support and not near enough cautionary counselling from the guy who's specific responsibility it to "protect the shield" at all costs.

Fair enough, and your argument makes a lot of sense.

But the reason I used the story was to show that Goodell's attitude had changed from supporting the players to supporting the owners. That part hasn't changed since October as it would appear that Goodell is still supporting the owners on this issue.

[NorthHawk]

It's not much of a surprise.
Goodell works for the owners and they give him his marching orders.
So if a group of them tell him he has to take a particular tack on an issue, he may resist, but if they are resolute he has to do it.
You can only tell your boss why you don't think it's a good idea and if they persist, you do it anyway.
I think this is just the owners trying to wrap themselves in the flag and the result as Bob has said is they dug up something that may have been on the way to being a corpse.

[HumanCockroach]

The NFL is disingenuous in most regards, why would this topic be any different? Does anyone truly believe the commissioner, or the owners actually are concerned with player safety due to any reason other than fear of lawsuits?

Nah, the NFL has a long history of siding with players when convenient, or they see overriding profit by doing so, but ultimately, like any business, they care about profit, and not much else. If this move is anything, it's a move made that they believed would increase profit in some way. If it doesn't, it was a miscalculation, nothing more.

[NorthHawk]

And now we have the politicians trying to take advantage of the situation...

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... em-stance/

[RiverDog]

I think this is just the owners trying to wrap themselves in the flag and the result as Bob has said is they dug up something that may have been on the way to being a corpse.

I wouldn't call the owner's response 'wrapping themselves in the flag.' Nothing they did or didn't do caused this problem, it was forced upon them, first by the players and later by the POTUS spouting off. They're not the ones that picked this fight.

I'm sure there are some owners, Jerry Jones in particular, that interpeted the protests as an insult, but by in large, the owners are reacting to a significant drop in television ratings and polls that have shown that a major factor in that decline is the protests. They see it as the players taking money away from everyone in the league, including the players themselves, and I don't blame them for trying to do something about it.

This would have been so simple had they just opted to keep the entire team in the locker room, like many sports do, but that wasn't good enough for them. They just have to have those sideline shots of players with their helmets off standing at attention. Now they've made a bad situation worse.

[NorthHawk]

The drop in ratings is largely a canard. The ratings don't count streaming and as far as TV ratings go for all shows, they are all down with the NFL down less than the average.
We really don't know if it affected the ratings at all.

You're right about keeping the teams in the locker room. They used to do it but now don't. I think that changed when they started getting the Military on board with payments from them.
I could be wrong about the timing, but I think things changed around then.

[c_hawkbob]

I think this is just the owners trying to wrap themselves in the flag and the result as Bob has said is they dug up something that may have been on the way to being a corpse.

I wouldn't call the owner's response 'wrapping themselves in the flag.' Nothing they did or didn't do caused this problem, it was forced upon them, first by the players and later by the POTUS spouting off. They're not the ones that picked this fight.

The owners are not innocent victims here; they took the DOD money and began parading the players out to stand and look patriotic for the flag and the Apache fly by's ... they could easily have just said "we welcome the military pageantry but our player will continue to remain in the locker rooms to focus on football till it's time for football".

In retrospect i'd say they should have, even though I did get chills from all the hullabaloo myself from time to time.

[RiverDog]

The owners are not innocent victims here; they took the DOD money and began parading the players out to stand and look patriotic for the flag and the Apache fly by's ... they could easily have just said "we welcome the military pageantry but our player will continue to remain in the locker rooms to focus on football till it's time for football".

In retrospect i'd say they should have, even though I did get chills from all the hullabaloo myself from time to time.

The taking of DOD money and having the players present for the military fly-bys is part of the reason why the owners refused to take the sensible approach and simply keep the players in the locker room, and to that extent, I agree with you. But it was not part of the genesis of the protests, which were primarily a response to the police shootings, of which the owners had nothing to do with.

[Aseahawkfan]

It's not much of a surprise.
Goodell works for the owners and they give him his marching orders.
So if a group of them tell him he has to take a particular tack on an issue, he may resist, but if they are resolute he has to do it.
You can only tell your boss why you don't think it's a good idea and if they persist, you do it anyway.
I think this is just the owners trying to wrap themselves in the flag and the result as Bob has said is they dug up something that may have been on the way to being a corpse.

It depends on the owners. As far as I know one owner can't override another. More than a few of them know pushing something with a small group might turn out bad for them overall. Someone like our owner Paul Allen isn't going to be pushed around even by the likes of Jerry Jones or the Rooney's. He's richer than they are and they would not enjoy if Paul Allen decided to flex with money. Not sure what is going on or who made this move, but it obviously isn't unanimous or even a majority it sounds like. I bet there are some talks going on right now to figure this out. At the end of the day Goodell is being pushed around by someone and some other rich owners are pushing back.

[RiverDog]

The drop in ratings is largely a canard. The ratings don't count streaming and as far as TV ratings go for all shows, they are all down with the NFL down less than the average.
We really don't know if it affected the ratings at all

Unless you want to contest the numerous polls that are readily available, the protests undeniably had an adverse affect on TV ratings. Of course, they were not the sole cause for the decline, but of those viewers that stopped watching, the most popular answer as to why they no longer watched NFL football was the protests.

Here's one poll from last February:

A UBS Securities analysis released Tuesday showed that 50 percent of U.S. consumers who watched less football in 2017 cited their disapproval of players refusing to stand during the national anthem, the most popular response and up from 32 percent last year.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ts-survey/

[NorthHawk]

People who respond to informal polls often lie to get their anger out.
If the consequences of answering truthfully (and if they were football fans to begin with) was to not allow them to watch games, I believe the polls would be much different.
That, however is not possible, so we are left with surveys of people who may or may not watch making statements about their viewing habits.
The fact is the ratings that are verified have shown the NFL lost fewer viewers than most other TV shows and the traditional TV viewing is generally on the decline.
Again, we don't know how many have cut the cord, so it's quite unreliable data.

[HumanCockroach]

Eh, same folks busy grabbing a beer, filtering to their seats, or taking a leak during it. Aren't any laws about standing during the anthem anymore than there are laws about how you trim your beard. People need to learn to accept at some point in a country whos founding belief was the freedom to choose what you're going to do, and how you're going to do it, and get on with their lives.... maybe focus on doing what makes them happy and stop trying to force feed everyone else their beliefs, or views. We'd all be better for it.