Jump to content

NFL players tribute to 9/11


ridenlow71

Recommended Posts

Some players are going to pay tribute to 9/11 by wearing special cleats and gloves..there's talk about the NFL fining them for it.

I think it would be very unwise for Mr. Goodell to leavy such fines.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/NFL-players-may-be-fined-for-wearing-unauthorize?urn=nfl-wp6799

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm sorry, if they can do the Breast Cancer Awareness month and make everyone wear pink accessories, they damn well ought to make everyone wear this stuff, too.

Big difference though. The BCA is NFL sponsored with proceeds goin to the cause. The 9/11 thingy only involves a few players. If this was NFL sponsored, then it would be ok'd. Apples and oranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I take issue with the idea that wearing red, white and blue gloves does anything to honor the dead. It seems like an attention-getting ploy to me. Honor the dead in a way that is actually meaningful.

Setting that aside, players like Briggs need to be fined for this stuff. Goodell can't be making any exceptions. What's to stop a player from wearing polka dot socks to honor his daughter who died from cancer (totally hypothetical) or a green facemask on his helmet to protest the deforestation of the rainforests (again, hypothetical). Goodell has to uphold the rules. Letting things go on a case-by-case basis would be a nightmare and it's not the proper way to govern issues like this. There are rules and you stick to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, if they can do the Breast Cancer Awareness month and make everyone wear pink accessories, they damn well ought to make everyone wear this stuff, too.

It's fine if they make them wear it, but they are choosing to break the uniform rule on their own accord. Just because my company allows us to wear jeans on Fridays doesn't mean there isn't a dress code the rest of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, if they can do the Breast Cancer Awareness month and make everyone wear pink accessories, they damn well ought to make everyone wear this stuff, too.

Big difference though. The BCA is NFL sponsored with proceeds goin to the cause. The 9/11 thingy only involves a few players. If this was NFL sponsored, then it would be ok'd. Apples and oranges.

I'm saying it should be NFL sponsored. It's not that there wasn't time to get all this situated.

Otherwise, I'd rather individuals not make their own fashion statements like what is being discussed in the Twitterverse. I have no problem with the NFL fining players for uniform violations, even ones with the best of intentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has to fine them. You make exceptions for rules and then expect people to still follow them. If the NFL doesn't fine them for violating the uniform code (even though it's done with the best intentions) it will open up a can of worms for future uniform violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I take issue with the idea that wearing red, white and blue gloves does anything to honor the dead. It seems like an attention-getting ploy to me. Honor the dead in a way that is actually meaningful.

Completely agree. Those cleats and gloves are tacky and will do far more to bring attention to the wearer than th cause they supposedly relate to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He bloody well ought to fine them. I'd go one better - no player wearing this garbage ought be allowed to set foot on the field until they he gets in uniform.

Self-aggrandizing marketing promotion from Reebok and any player who enables them.

If a player really wishes to "pay tribute", let him donate his game check to a scholarship or some other legitimate 9/11-related charity. Otherwise it's just a toddler's appeal for any attention he can get, unworthy of the League, unworthy of the game, and unworthy of notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I take issue with the idea that wearing red, white and blue gloves does anything to honor the dead. It seems like an attention-getting ploy to me. Honor the dead in a way that is actually meaningful.

Setting that aside, players like Briggs need to be fined for this stuff. Goodell can't be making any exceptions. What's to stop a player from wearing polka dot socks to honor his daughter who died from cancer (totally hypothetical) or a green facemask on his helmet to protest the deforestation of the rainforests (again, hypothetical). Goodell has to uphold the rules. Letting things go on a case-by-case basis would be a nightmare and it's not the proper way to govern issues like this. There are rules and you stick to them.

+1000000000000000000000

tributes to tragedies should be solemn and understated but it appears that the sept 11th is getting a degree of treatment more suitable for a national holiday celebration

I can't wait for impending the 9/11 firework show

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He bloody well ought to fine them. I'd go one better - no player wearing this garbage ought be allowed to set foot on the field until they he gets in uniform.

Self-aggrandizing marketing promotion from Reebok and any player who enables them.

If a player really wishes to "pay tribute", let him donate his game check to a scholarship or some other legitimate 9/11-related charity. Otherwise it's just a toddler's appeal for any attention he can get, unworthy of the League, unworthy of the game, and unworthy of notice.

This is one of those situations where my marketing teacher's saying comes into play: "Money talks, people walk." Want to make a real difference? Donate that game check (probably 10-15k?) to a worthy charity. Wearing gloves does nothing but get attention on you. Give a check to a fallen firefighter, police officer, or medic's family pre-game. You fill your attention-whore need and the family will be recognized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would wearing the gloves, and cleats not honer 9/11? It's not any different from baseball players wearing FDNY caps around the time it happened, and if I remember correctly on the 5th year anniversary. And Goodell could've made and exception in this case for such a tragic event that affected everybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the NFL teams are wearing little patches on the left chest/shoulder...ribbons with a flag in front. I think that's appropriate. It's a round-numbered anniversary of a big day in US history. I saw the patch somewhere on an Jones-Drew jersey. If it's what they are using, it's simple and respectful and since it's league wide on Sunday (at least that's my guess), there is no "loud attention-whoring, Reebok capitalizing" issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would wearing the gloves, and cleats not honer 9/11? It's not any different from baseball players wearing FDNY caps around the time it happened, and if I remember correctly on the 5th year anniversary. And Goodell could've made and exception in this case for such a tragic event that affected everybody.

Those were a team thing, not a look at me thing. Notice it is called a "uniform" as in made to look the same, not stand out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Reebok great job on these gloves and shoes..looks like I'm getting fined this week. Lol!" Briggs tweeted Thursday. "By far the best fine I will ever have to pay. Thanks"

It's not always about attention. Briggs isn't someone, besides asking for money, who seeks out attention. Let them fine them, the players know they'll be fine and it's obvious they don't care. This is a lot more than that. This was the biggest tragedy to strike American soil and impacted everybody in this country. For a time, it helped unite everyone in this country as well.

He should fine them because it's against the rules, but there should have been an exception maybe for this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I take issue with the idea that wearing red, white and blue gloves does anything to honor the dead. It seems like an attention-getting ploy to me. Honor the dead in a way that is actually meaningful.

Setting that aside, players like Briggs need to be fined for this stuff. Goodell can't be making any exceptions. What's to stop a player from wearing polka dot socks to honor his daughter who died from cancer (totally hypothetical) or a green facemask on his helmet to protest the deforestation of the rainforests (again, hypothetical). Goodell has to uphold the rules. Letting things go on a case-by-case basis would be a nightmare and it's not the proper way to govern issues like this. There are rules and you stick to them.

That's a lot different than 3 000 people dying in one day because of a deliberate attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this is sort of unrelated, but if you're a player and you flat out refuse to wear the ridiculous pink gear the NFL provides and instead hit the field in regular, league approved gear, do you still get fined for not participating, or is it optional?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would wearing the gloves, and cleats not honer 9/11? It's not any different from baseball players wearing FDNY caps around the time it happened, and if I remember correctly on the 5th year anniversary. And Goodell could've made and exception in this case for such a tragic event that affected everybody.

Those were a team thing, not a look at me thing. Notice it is called a "uniform" as in made to look the same, not stand out.

Yeah, :rolleyes: I know what it's called. So wearing the cleats and gloves are a "look at me thing"? You really think Briggs is that attention starved that he would use this day to gather as much attention for himself at the expense of the anniversary? So teammates always wear the same color gloves and the same cleats during the season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable

transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so

on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the

premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually

established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur

when this is not done - an argument that supports the relevant premises is not

fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.