Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

I did a few quickie searches under sports law but didn't find anything specific enough to cover this. I'm too lazy right now to dig any deeper. My guess is there may have been something in his contract about maintaining a good image - for the team and the league as a whole. I could be wrong on that.

 

Like I said,  I don't support those 'good image' clauses for actors, sport figures, musicians, etc...   To me they are too vague and give the employer too much power over the employee.    Illegal acts should be handled by the legal system.   But if the CBA allows for such things then I fault the player's union for agreeing to those terms. 

 

Related to this,  Phil Jackson was very vocal about the power the CBA gave the NBA commissioner over coaches.   But Phil,  being the intelligent man that he is,   made it clear that he voted against granting the commissioner power to fine coaches over comments they make,  but that the majority of coaches didn't agree with him.    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The legal assessment and previous NFL response(s) were not based on this latest elevator video, which clearly shows what appears to be a left punch to the head akin to Mohamed Ali laying a full force left hook on your (or my) jaw. Slam - Bam ! Hit the floor instantly. Then he dragged her out of the elevator, plopped her face down on the floor, lightly kicking her unconscious body as he moved around her.

 

It's unclear why this important piece of evidence seems to have been withheld by the police, who had it in their possession...  AND why the Ravens AND NFL deny having seen it or having any knowledge of it - until now.

After watching the morning shows, my not getting it is shared by everyone. Why didn't the Ravens and NFL view the video earlier? If they did, why did they ignore it? Why did the Police not try him if they did view the video? Apparently, his behavior based on the video is worse than anyone anticipated. Many athletes have been excused for instances of domestic violence, but the difference here is that there was a video. In today's world, nothing becomes important until you can see it with your own eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After watching the morning shows, my not getting it is shared by everyone. Why didn't the Ravens and NFL view the video earlier? If they did, why did they ignore it? Why did the Police not try him if they did view the video? Apparently, his behavior based on the video is worse than anyone anticipated. Many athletes have been excused for instances of domestic violence, but the difference here is that there was a video. In today's world, nothing becomes important until you can see it with your own eyes.

Nobody did "the right thing" until the video surfaced and there was no denying the facts. Everyone is now backpedaling so fast, the Earth may actually begin to reverse it's rotation. Personally, I believe it was all intended to be swept under the rug with a slap on the wrist to Rice - as I suspect hundreds of previous offenses were handled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody did "the right thing" until the video surfaced and there was no denying the facts. Everyone is now backpedaling so fast, the Earth may actually begin to reverse it's rotation. Personally, I believe it was all intended to be swept under the rug with a slap on the wrist to Rice - as I suspect hundreds of previous offenses were handled.

Another mistake-----He shouldn't have been allowed to be there with her when she announced that she would forgive him and not press charges. Even so, The DA could still prosecute even if she was unwilling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another mistake-----He shouldn't have been allowed to be there with her when she announced that she would forgive him and not press charges. Even so, The DA could still prosecute even if she was unwilling.

 

The media focus should be on the DA more so than the NFL.    I don't recall protest over the DA's handling of the case.   

 

To me,  the legal system should punish someone for illegal acts more than their employer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

It was funny seeing Thursday Night football this week.   The New York Giants played Washington. 

 

What was funny is that it was clear that the announcers were instructed not to say the actual name of the Washington team,  Redskins.

 

E.g. they would say things like 'the Giants gained 8 yards on that play'  or 'Washington gained 8 yards on that play'.

 

But what was real funny was how big Redskins was placed on the end-zone.   Since the Giants were in Washington's red zone most of the game (NY killed them) that really big Redskins stood out.   Is that the size it always is or did the owner instruct the grounds crew to make it extra big since the network told the owner that the announcers wouldn't be using the team's name?   (I do know that the team was told by mutiple networks they would no longer use the team's name)   I wonder.

 

PS: Don't wish to get into the politics related to the name.   I just posted this because it was funny to see the network going to all this trouble.   What will be next?  Are they going to  'cover up' the name in the end-zone like they do women's breast on network T.V.?    

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

HEY! Speakin' of the "Redskins"...

 

I now have to wonder if the idea that the name of the D.C.-based team is as "racist" and as much of "an affront" as many now claim...and here's the reason:

 

While my wife and I and another couple were on our way to Durango Colorado last Saturday, we drove through the NE section of Arizona and through Indian...errr...Native American/Navajo land and toward the Four Corners Monument. And, as we drove past an Indian...DANG IT...I mean a NATIVE AMERICAN high school, we spotted a large and seemingly fairly new sign sittin' in front of the well manicured football field OF that school, and...well...yeah, you guessed it! I kid you NOT, but the sign read: "Red Mesa High School REDSKINS"!

 

(...and soooooo, the ONLY thing I can think of here as to explain why the local tribal school board allows THAT to continue MIGHT be a variation of that classic old saying: "Now, I CAN say MY mother wears combat boots, but YOU better not!"...don't ya just love it?!!!) LOL

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

WAIT! Just thought of a few other possible reasons for this...

 

A- The Navajo are a very insensitive people in relation to how many other Native Americans tribes feel about this issue

 

B- The Navajo are an extremely secure people who don't allow things like the wording of "Redskins" to get under their...IF you'll excuse the expression...skin

 

C- The Navajo don't follow the latest news in the Paleface media, and thus don't know what they're supposed to be offended by

 

(...just for the record, MY, and please excuse the expression here again, wampum's on "B" bein' the most likely answer here, btw) 

 

LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

HEY! Speakin' of the "Redskins"...

 

I now have to wonder if the idea that the name of the D.C.-based team is as "racist" and as much of "an affront" as many now claim...and here's the reason:

 

While my wife and I and another couple were on our way to Durango Colorado last Saturday, we drove through the NE section of Arizona and through Indian...errr...Native American/Navajo land and toward the Four Corners Monument. And, as we drove past an Indian...DANG IT...I mean a NATIVE AMERICAN high school, we spotted a large and seemingly fairly new sign sittin' in front of the well manicured football field OF that school, and...well...yeah, you guessed it! I kid you NOT, but the sign read: "Red Mesa High School REDSKINS"!

 

(...and soooooo, the ONLY thing I can think of here as to explain why the local tribal school board allows THAT to continue MIGHT be a variation of that classic old saying: "Now, I CAN say MY mother wears combat boots, but YOU better not!"...don't ya just love it?!!!) LOL

When I hear about the football team of the Compton High School N*****s, then I'll believe it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if shying away from saying "Redskins" by the CBS broadcast team was a network decision or the choice of the announcing crew.  I know ESPN issued a statement weeks ago saying it would leave it up to the individuals involved with a broadcast covering Washington whether they would use the term Redskins or not.  This is also true of any discussion of the team in other sports programs ESPN offers aside from the actual broadcast of Redskins games.

 

One thing that bothers me about using sports monikers like Redskins or Indians is the argument of "It's OK for us to use that term, but not you", as Dargo pointed out earlier.  I feel the same way about words that DGF mentioned about Compton High.  If a term is deemed offensive for use by one group of people, then it should be offensive to all.  If I were a person of color I would hate any derogatory term in any context and would not use it myself.  Like many others in America, I come from immigrant stock, and I dislike hearing my ancestors disparaged, solely because "they didn't arrive on the Mayflower or participate in the Battle of Cowpens".

 

The move to change nicknames began in the early 1970's on college campuses.  The first ones to do it were Stanford, Dartmouth, and William & Mary.  They all went from "Indians" to Cardinal, Big Green, and The Tribe.  For schools like Florida State (Seminoles), Utah (Utes), and Central Michigan (Chippewas), the use of specific tribal names are OK with me, so long as they have the blessing of the tribe involved (and all do).  Syracuse officially changed its name from Orangemen to Orange.  Miami of Ohio went from Redskins to Red Hawks.  St. John's and Massachusetts were both known as Redmen, but changed to Red Storm and Minutemen, respectively.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The KC Royals have made the playoffs!!  The KC Royals have made the playoffs!!  It's a great day!!  Now if they can win their last two regular season games and the Tigers lose theirs then they will win the division!!  Go Royals!!  I've been a fan of theirs since their inception!!  Ah, the heady days of the great Royals teams in the early 80's!!  Hopefully those days are back again in some form!!  Yowsa!! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if shying away from saying "Redskins" by the CBS broadcast team was a network decision or the choice of the announcing crew.  I know ESPN issued a statement weeks ago saying it would leave it up to the individuals involved with a broadcast covering Washington whether they would use the term Redskins or not.  This is also true of any discussion of the team in other sports programs ESPN offers aside from the actual broadcast of Redskins games.

 

One thing that bothers me about using sports monikers like Redskins or Indians is the argument of "It's OK for us to use that term, but not you", as Dargo pointed out earlier.  I feel the same way about words that DGF mentioned about Compton High.  If a term is deemed offensive for use by one group of people, then it should be offensive to all.  If I were a person of color I would hate any derogatory term in any context and would not use it myself.  Like many others in America, I come from immigrant stock, and I dislike hearing my ancestors disparaged, solely because "they didn't arrive on the Mayflower or participate in the Battle of Cowpens".

 

The move to change nicknames began in the early 1970's on college campuses.  The first ones to do it were Stanford, Dartmouth, and William & Mary.  They all went from "Indians" to Cardinal, Big Green, and The Tribe.  For schools like Florida State (Seminoles), Utah (Utes), and Central Michigan (Chippewas), the use of specific tribal names are OK with me, so long as they have the blessing of the tribe involved (and all do).  Syracuse officially changed its name from Orangemen to Orange.  Miami of Ohio went from Redskins to Red Hawks.  St. John's and Massachusetts were both known as Redment, but changed to Red Storm and Minutemen, respectively.

The Cleveland Indians are still using the "Chief Wahoo" logo, and the Redskins still have the helmet logo.Would it be a reasonable compromise to get rid of the logo but not the name?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The KC Royals have made the playoffs!!  The KC Royals have made the playoffs!!  It's a great day!!  Now if they can win their last two regular season games and the Tigers lose theirs then they will win the division!!  Go Royals!!  I've been a fan of theirs since their inception!!  Ah, the heady days of the great Royals teams in the early 80's!!  Hopefully those days are back again in some form!!  Yowsa!! 

 

With this silly one game wildcard playoff you better hope the Royals win the division.    The one game playoff requires a team to use their ace for this one game and if they advance not being able to use their ace until game 3 or 4.   That really sets a team back since in the playoff it is fairly common for the #1 and #2 pitchers to win a majority of the overall wins.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cleveland Indians are still using the "Chief Wahoo" logo, and the Redskins still have the helmet logo.Would it be a reasonable compromise to get rid of the logo but not the name?

I thought Cleveland had gotten rid of Chief Wahoo on its caps.  Any game I've seen this year shows a "C" on their caps.  Years ago, Washington had a white and gold spear on its maroon helmets, and a maroon "R" in a white circle on yellow helmets.  I have more of a problem with the nickname "Redskins" moreso than the logo for Washington.  For Cleveland, it's the opposite.  The name doesn't bother me, but the image of Chief Wahoo is a sterotypical parody that I would find offensive if I were a Native American.

 

The NCAA came down on Illinois several years ago about the logo it was using (an Indian chief in full headdress).  The university got rid of the logo, much to the anger and disgust of its mostly white student body and alumni, but was allowed to keep the nickname of Fighting Illini.  Illini is an Indian derivative of a name used by early French explorers in the region to describe the local populace (meaning "men" or "people").  Unlike Florida State, Utah, and Central Michigan, the University of North Dakota has been embroiled in recent litigation surrounding its nickname (the Fighting Sioux).  Sioux tribes have been split on the use of the nickname, and the school has gotten away from using the logo, which is essentially the same as that used by the Chicago Blackhawks.  Just like Illinois, North Dakota fans past and present, are very resentful of the furor over the use of the logo and nickname.  If the various Sioux tribes had been unified in allowing the school to keep either the name, logo, or both, I would have no problem with it.  Since there is so much dissension over the issue for the Grand Forks campus, I think it should be changed to something that will keep everyone happy (or relatively so).

 

As far as I know, I haven't heard of complaints about Chicago using the "Blackhawks" moniker for its NHL team.  As for Notre Dame's nickname and logo, I haven't heard of complaints from the Irish government or Irish Americans about its use, but if it ever arose to such rancorous levels as the use of Native American names and logos, I would have no problem with a change there too.  Eastern Michigan University used to be called "the Hurons", but the school changed its nickname some years ago to Eagles.  Whether this was solely an administration decision to do it or they could not get approval from the Huron Nation, I don't know.

 

Within the past 10 years, place names in Montana and Maine that had the name "squa" were changed by the respective state legislatures, after it was pointed out that the term was considered vulgar to Native Americans, as it described female genitalia in many tribal languages. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if shying away from saying "Redskins" by the CBS broadcast team was a network decision or the choice of the announcing crew.  I know ESPN issued a statement weeks ago saying it would leave it up to the individuals involved with a broadcast covering Washington whether they would use the term Redskins or not.  This is also true of any discussion of the team in other sports programs ESPN offers aside from the actual broadcast of Redskins games.

 

One thing that bothers me about using sports monikers like Redskins or Indians is the argument of "It's OK for us to use that term, but not you", as Dargo pointed out earlier.  I feel the same way about words that DGF mentioned about Compton High.  If a term is deemed offensive for use by one group of people, then it should be offensive to all.  If I were a person of color I would hate any derogatory term in any context and would not use it myself.  Like many others in America, I come from immigrant stock, and I dislike hearing my ancestors disparaged, solely because "they didn't arrive on the Mayflower or participate in the Battle of Cowpens".

 

The move to change nicknames began in the early 1970's on college campuses.  The first ones to do it were Stanford, Dartmouth, and William & Mary.  They all went from "Indians" to Cardinal, Big Green, and The Tribe.  For schools like Florida State (Seminoles), Utah (Utes), and Central Michigan (Chippewas), the use of specific tribal names are OK with me, so long as they have the blessing of the tribe involved (and all do).  Syracuse officially changed its name from Orangemen to Orange.  Miami of Ohio went from Redskins to Red Hawks.  St. John's and Massachusetts were both known as Redmen, but changed to Red Storm and Minutemen, respectively.

 

I do wonder if the CBS policy is  the same as the ESPN one.  When it is left up to each announcer I'm looking forward to a game where one of the announcers feels strongly that using Redskins is A-OK,  especially the play by play guy.   It could get really funny as well as heated.

 

e.g.   Joe,  did you see how Washington advanced the ball with the play?    Yea,  Steve,  those REDSKINS really fooled those Saints on that play.    Wow that number 45 from the REDSKINS is something,  isn't he Steve.     Steve?   Steve?    

Link to post
Share on other sites

With this silly one game wildcard playoff you better hope the Royals win the division.    The one game playoff requires a team to use their ace for this one game and if they advance not being able to use their ace until game 3 or 4.   That really sets a team back since in the playoff it is fairly common for the #1 and #2 pitchers to win a majority of the overall wins.    

I'm hoping for the division clearly and dearly .  Your logic is spot on.  The Royals need to play royally today and tomorrow and hope the Twins kick b**t! and take no prisoners!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping for the division clearly and dearly .  Your logic is spot on.  The Royals need to play royally today and tomorrow and hope the Twins kick b**t! and take no prisoners!!

 

While I'm an Angel fan (since I live in the OC),  I have always been a fan of the Royals since I like small market clubs and they have done very well for a small market team.   So I'll be pulling for them until they face the Angels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm an Angel fan (since I live in the OC),  I have always been a fan of the Royals since I like small market clubs and they have done very well for a small market team.   So I'll be pulling for them until they face the Angels.

 

Ya think this might be the year we finally see a "Freeway World Series", James?

 

(...or do you think the Cardinals will once again find that playoff magic they've conjured up so many times in recent years?) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya think this might be the year we finally see a "Freeway World Series", James?

 

(...or do you think the Cardinals will once again find that playoff magic they've conjured up so many times in recent years?) 

 

A lot depends on if Ryu,  the Dodgers third starter, will be available or not.   Like last year if Kershaw has an off game,  and the Dodgers have to depend on their 4th starter,  the Dodgers could be in trouble.  

 

The Angels also lack pitching depth but their bats have been on fire.   But typically pitching wins playoff series.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya think this might be the year we finally see a "Freeway World Series", James?

 

(...or do you think the Cardinals will once again find that playoff magic they've conjured up so many times in recent years?) 

There are several possibilities for 'rivalry' World Series matchups.  You could have an I-95 series between Washington and Baltimore, I-70 between Kansas City and St. Louis, and a NorCal vs. SoCal series pitting the Angels against the Giants or the Dodges vs. the A's.

 

Hard to say who might come out on top of the heap.  I would think Washington, Baltimore, and both LA teams would be the odds-on-favorite to make it to the World Series, but did they all peak too soon?  The Cardinals have not been very dominant at all this year.  Their relievers have blown plenty of save opportunities and their bats don't seem as reliable as in years past.  Still, St. Louis could be "in" the Dodgers' heads, just like they are for Detroit and Pittsburgh.  Conversely, if the Cards play San Francisco, my money's on the Giants to win that series, be it 1 game or best of 7.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several possibilities for 'rivalry' World Series matchups.  You could have an I-95 series between Washington and Baltimore, I-70 between Kansas City and St. Louis, and a NorCal vs. SoCal series pitting the Angels against the Giants or the Dodges vs. the A's.

 

Hard to say who might come out on top of the heap.  I would think Washington, Baltimore, and both LA teams would be the odds-on-favorite to make it to the World Series, but did they all peak too soon?  The Cardinals have not been very dominant at all this year.  Their relievers have blown plenty of save opportunities and their bats don't seem as reliable as in years past.  Still, St. Louis could be "in" the Dodgers' heads, just like they are for Detroit and Pittsburgh.  Conversely, if the Cards play San Francisco, my money's on the Giants to win that series, be it 1 game or best of 7.

 

The Cardinals will just try to do what they did last year;   Break the ribs of the Dodgers best hitting player!   A lot of talk about that going on in the local paper and sport talk shows.    Instead of the Cardinals getting in the Dodgers heads,  this year Don's going to order his pitchers to go for the Cardnials heads.    It could get real ugly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugly is right...it makes sports so compelling!  Speaking of which, Boston College, the team that stunned USC a couple of weeks ago, just lost at home to Colorado State!

 

I use to think you were a nice guy but knowing that I live in So Cal,  and therefore likely to be a USC football fan (I am),  you just had to pour salt on my wounds!     :P

 

What is next,  telling me that Colorado State ran for over 150 yards while USC couldn't even get 50 two weeks ago! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use to think you were a nice guy but knowing that I live in So Cal,  and therefore likely to be a USC football fan (I am),  you just had to pour salt on my wounds!     :P

 

What is next,  telling me that Colorado State ran for over 150 yards while USC couldn't even get 50 two weeks ago! 

Come on James...like a lot of people, I only use salt for cooking  :D .

 

USC's loss was understandable, given that they played a very physical game against Stanford the week before, then had to fly cross-country to meet the Eagles.  Look at UCLA (yeah, I know you'd rather not)!  They struggled against Virginia in Charlottesville, but Thursday night, they treated Arizona State like the horse Cagney shot in "The Public Enemy" for kicking Nails and ultimately killing him.  It's true mostly in the NFL, but West Coast teams that travel to the East Coast for games have a harder time winning than when Eastern teams travel to the West, and I think a lot of that has to do with acclimating yourself to the 3-hour time difference.

 

In 2007, if I remember correctly, Oregon State played a football game at Cincinnati.  At the time, it was only the third game the Beavers had ever played in the Eastern Time Zone.  I found that stat to be very interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...