Rams won 52-0 over the Raiders...that's all I cared about!

SLPD chief says Rams COO called and apologized.

That's really irrelevant isn't it? He's not complaining about their criminal record.

 

I think it's fair to say they probably could have picked a better spokesperson if he was going to throw his name out in the media with a statement like that.

 

I do understand why I police officer who does things by the book would be upset by the Rams' players gesture, but this guy doesn't really sound like someone that is going to get a lot of sympathy from the public as this gains traction.

 

If it's an officer who is/was a veteran, maybe someone whose been wounded in the line of duty, done something heroic, etc., then it'd be much harder for the public to take shots at them if they were the poster boy for the SLPD.

I think it's fair to say they probably could have picked a better spokesperson if he was going to throw his name out in the media with a statement like that.

 

I do understand why I police officer who does things by the book would be upset by the Rams' players gesture, but this guy doesn't really sound like someone that is going to get a lot of sympathy from the public as this gains traction.

 

If it's an officer who is/was a veteran, maybe someone whose been wounded in the line of duty, done something heroic, etc., then it'd be much harder for the public to take shots at them if they were the poster boy for the SLPD.

 

He isn't the poster boy for the SLPD.

It's odd that the NFL says they won't fine the players involved considering the following.

 

Griffin, though, has been twice fined by the NFL for wearing non-approved logos or clothing on game days.

 

 

Why Robert Griffin III turned his ?Know Jesus Know Peace? t-shirt inside out - The Washington Post

 

Griffin was fined twice for wearing Adidas shirts, and apparently had to turn his Jesus shirt inside out.

 

The NFL Rules state the following:

 

 

Throughout the period on game-day that a player is visible to the stadium and television audience

(including in pregame warm-ups, in the bench area, and during postgame interviews in the locker room or

on the field), players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages

either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office.

Items to celebrate anniversaries or memorable events, or to honor or commemorate individuals, such as

helmet decals, and arm bands and jersey patches on players’ uniforms, are prohibited unless approved in

advance by the League office. All such items must relate to team or League events or personages. The

League will not grant permission for any club or player to wear, display, or otherwise convey messages,

through helmet decals, arm bands, jersey patches, or other items affixed to game uniforms or equipment,

which relate to political activities or causes, other non-football events, causes or campaigns, or charitable

causes or campaigns. Further, such armbands and jersey patches must be modest in size, tasteful, noncommercial,

and non-controversial; must not be worn for more than one football season; and if approved

for use by a specific team, must not be worn by players on other teams in the League

 

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/8_Rule5_Players_Subs_Equip_GeneralRules.pdf

FWIW I don't care if they are fined. But why is it okay to fine RGIII and other players for breaking the rules, but not the Rams players, when it appears they also broke the rules?

FWIW I don't care if they are fined. But why is it okay to fine RGIII and other players for breaking the rules, but not the Rams players, when it appears they also broke the rules?

 

Agreed! But could you see the backlash if the NFL fines these players which from what the rule states, they have every right too. And since they fined RGIII, don't they have to. I mean, RGIII can appeal and get the money back now if the NFL doesn't fine them? They, the 5 players "otherwise conveyed their message" imo!

FWIW I don't care if they are fined. But why is it okay to fine RGIII and other players for breaking the rules, but not the Rams players, when it appears they also broke the rules?

 

Your bolded section wouldn't apply here. It pertains to items affixed to uniforms or otherwise worn by the player. It's a rule to protect sponsors and league branding by banning them from wearing unaffiliated clothing or altering their uniforms.

 

Your bolded section wouldn't apply here. It pertains to items affixed to uniforms or otherwise worn by the player. It's a rule to protect sponsors and league branding by banning them from wearing unaffiliated clothing or altering their uniforms.

 

Britt wrote "Mike Brown" on one wrist and "my kids matter" on the other.

 

Would this not apply to the others?

 

players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office.

Britt wrote "Mike Brown" on one wrist and "my kids matter" on the other.

 

Would this not apply to the others?

 

players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office.

 

Didn't know that; hadn't read the whole story. Yeah that's probably a violation of the rule.

 

Selective prosecution. Happens all the time. The rule probably exists mostly to protect companies that make sponsored equipment and gear for the league. Since that wasn't at issue here, the league probably didn't bother with it. Also, they didn't need the PR problems that would come with cracking down on those guys for that.

 

That said, I'm not into the rule and I wish RGIII hadn't been fined either so it's hard for me to get too worked up about the league ignoring a rule that I wish they'd ignore more often.

 

Didn't know that; hadn't read the whole story. Yeah that's probably a violation of the rule.

 

Selective prosecution. Happens all the time. The rule probably exists mostly to protect companies that make sponsored equipment and gear for the league. Since that wasn't at issue here, the league probably didn't bother with it. Also, they didn't need the PR problems that would come with cracking down on those guys for that.

 

I understand that. Just another thing I disagree with that the nfl has done recently.

 

To be clear, I don't necessarily care that they didn't punish them. I just think they shouldn't have punished RGIII either if that's the route they choose.

Here is the issue it appears, to me, that many are missing:

 

The players have the right to express their opinions and support the cause in their personal life. If they're outside of work and choose to do so, and do so in a respectful manner, then good on 'em. But the NFL field is their place of employment. If you and I walked into our work and stood at the door with the hands up sign, I'd imagine we'd be told it is inappropriate to bring that to the work place. We can be activist on our own time and not our employers. They are representing their employer, The Rams, and the NFL on that field not just themselves.

 

I think the hands up sign is ignorant at this point. I get it, it's to show support for police officers killing young black men, but....how about we start being activist for the much larger volume of black on black crime. Young black men killing off other young black men. And how about we recognize that Michael Brown is NOT the right face of the cause. He was in the wrong. I want every person to have the same opportunities as the person next to them regardless of race, and I know we aren't completely there yet, but ignoring the base rate is ignorant.

I think the hands up sign is ignorant at this point. I get it, it's to show support for police officers killing young black men, but....how about we start being activist for the much larger volume of black on black crime.

 

You think you're the first person to think folks should take up the cause of fighting against black on black crime?

 

You think that doesn't happen already?

 

You know why you don't hear about it? Because no one in the state capitols, in DC, or in the media gives one hair off a rat's backside about poor kids in the ghetto killing each other. There are huge efforts underway in every city around the country to battle this but NO ONE seems to care.

You think you're the first person to think folks should take up the cause of fighting against black on black crime?

 

You think that doesn't happen already?

 

You know why you don't hear about it? Because no one in the state capitols, in DC, or in the media gives one hair off a rat's backside about poor kids in the ghetto killing each other. There are huge efforts underway in every city around the country to battle this but NO ONE seems to care.

 

THANK YOU.

 

The reason more isn't done to fix black on black crime is because nobody that is important enough or has enough pull gives two craps about it. Fact. People can say "stop killing each other," and as simple as it sounds, it's not that easy to fix.

You think you're the first person to think folks should take up the cause of fighting against black on black crime?

 

You think that doesn't happen already?

 

You know why you don't hear about it? Because no one in the state capitols, in DC, or in the media gives one hair off a rat's backside about poor kids in the ghetto killing each other. There are huge efforts underway in every city around the country to battle this but NO ONE seems to care.

 

When have we seen the big talking heads like Sharpton out there organizing protests/rally's etc.? Maybe I've missed it. I have no doubt folks within the community have efforts underway, but when have we seen NFL players come out on the field and make a statement about that? We see them get behind opportune causes like police officers killing young black men, but not addressing a much larger issue.