New York Mick Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 there's no logical defense for allowing the word in the NFL. Anyone against this ban can't come up with a sound reason why the word should stay, un-penalized. just a bunch of reactionaries wishing life was the way it was back in the 1950's. when life was simpler and the white man wasn't so butt hurt. and by the way allowing Redskins doesn't make it right either. That team name should also be changed. two wrongs don't make a right. When did Hillary start posting here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share Posted February 24, 2014 there's no logical defense for allowing the word in the NFL. Anyone against this ban can't come up with a sound reason why the word should stay, un-penalized. just a bunch of reactionaries wishing life was the way it was back in the 1950's. when life was simpler and the white man wasn't so butt hurt. and by the way allowing Redskins doesn't make it right either. That team name should also be changed. two wrongs don't make a right. I think it's wrong to give a flag and let the outcome of the game be decided on it. You want to fine guys, doesn't matter to me whether they say it or not.. Ultimately I think all of this is fairly amusing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 there's no logical defense for allowing the word in the NFL. Anyone against this ban can't come up with a sound reason why the word should stay, un-penalized. just a bunch of reactionaries wishing life was the way it was back in the 1950's. when life was simpler and the white man wasn't so butt hurt. and by the way allowing Redskins doesn't make it right either. That team name should also be changed. two wrongs don't make a right. Because it's already on the books that a ref can flag a player for unsportsmanlike conduct if they use the word - presumably in a way that is unsportsmanlike conduct, and not just a blanket penalty for the use of a word that many African American players use with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Because it's already on the books that a ref can flag a player for unsportsmanlike conduct if they use the word - presumably in a way that is unsportsmanlike conduct, and not just a blanket penalty for the use of a word that many African American players use with each other. that's not really an argument that it should be un penalized. It's an argument against less rules? Sorry the ship already sailed on that one. The NFL is full of arcane rules, a million of em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I think it's wrong to give a flag and let the outcome of the game be decided on it. There's alot of penalties where the flag stays in the pocket when the game is on the line. refs don't call defensive holding sometimes either when the game is on the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I think it's wrong to give a flag and let the outcome of the game be decided on it. You want to fine guys, doesn't matter to me whether they say it or not.. Ultimately I think all of this is fairly amusing I'm going to guess that you'll see this flag thrown one time, in a preseason game, on a UDFA rookie who never sees the regular season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewillie78 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I think it's wrong to give a flag and let the outcome of the game be decided on it. You want to fine guys, doesn't matter to me whether they say it or not.. Ultimately I think all of this is fairly amusing Are you familiar with Defensive Pass Interference? Decides more games in the NFL, than any single run or pass play ever invented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share Posted February 24, 2014 Are you familiar with Defensive Pass Interference? Decides more games in the NFL, than any single run or pass play ever invented. Well sure, but it actually impacts what happens on the field. Without it, a CB could just tackle a WR at the snap.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I'm going to guess that you'll see this flag thrown one time, in a preseason game, on a UDFA rookie who never sees the regular season. Dont believe they called the crown of the helmet rule once Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewillie78 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Well sure, but it actually impacts what happens on the field. Without it, a CB could just tackle a WR at the snap.. The old raiders with Atkinson and Tatum et al. did it all the time. They helped to get the rules changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsjetsjetss Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 can't they just go to the nbas model and give a technical/penalty for excessive taunting or slurs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Since when did this obsession with comparing the NFL to your office job become such a thing? exact same thing. dress code and all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Well sure, but it actually impacts what happens on the field. Without it, a CB could just tackle a WR at the snap.. Ty Law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 The obvious idiocy of this rule is that it's designed to specifically pinpoint one word. Kind of proves beyond argument that this isn't any actual attempt to stop this "unsportsmanlike" behavior as much as it is a nonsensical PR move to make up for it being used by a few white boys last year. Anyone who really wants to use the term in a derogatory manner has an endless list of other options they can defer to if they really want. Don't get me wrong, I don't really have a problem with them having a rule against it if that's what they want (although I agree it should simply be a fine), but if you're going to do that then you need to make the point of it applying across the board and not to just one word. It comes across as even more idiotic when you consider the fact that the NFL in the midst of this mass hysteria about a gay player and yet that somehow didn't work it's way as a factor in this rule. Just proves that the NFL and particularly Goodell, base any and every decision they make these days as reactionary to the media above all else, including common sense. Perhaps they'll continue to add one word at a time onto the list of banned words only as each one is used by a player and the media makes a story out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFanInDenver Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Whats the penalty when two African American refs are on the same crew and they have to address each other ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pac Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Ridiculous proposal... Lets outlaw a word in the sport where roid-raged maniacs try to knock each other unconcious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetcane Redux Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 They should ban the "F" bomb, too. Then no one on the field will know what to say. Oh, and make everyone wear pink accessories for one month- yikes, they already do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 The obvious idiocy of this rule is that it's designed to specifically pinpoint one word. just to be clear the rule is covering all racial slurs. Not just one word. They likely will also ban homophobic slurs in a similar rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 just to be clear the rule is covering all racial slurs. Not just one word. They likely will also ban homophobic slurs in a similar rule. did you even read the article? the articles I have read were very specific to the one word. if I am wrong, please show me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryK Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 They should ban the "F" bomb, too. Then no one on the field will know what to say. Oh, and make everyone wear pink accessories for one month- yikes, they already do that. If by 'F bomb' you mean "First down jets" then yeah, they banned it 4 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 did you even read the article? the articles I have read were very specific to the one word. if I am wrong, please show me Wooten’s comments were strictly about the N-word, but if the NFL is going to implement this rule, other racial slurs would presumably be included as well, along with slurs that are homophobic, sexist or religious in nature. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/02/22/nfl-may-impose-15-yard-penalties-for-racial-slurs-on-the-field/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 just to be clear, "presumably" is not clear. they specifically stated only the one word be penalized. pure racism at its worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 We're all just Richie Incognito kinda guys living in a Jonathan Martin kinda country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 The operative word being "presumably". You would hope that's true, but there's been no indication from the league that it is, and they have shown time and time again that they are actually stupid enough for something like that not to be. Then again, it's entirely possible that they'll catch enough crap before then that even if they didn't intend to have the rule be more broad, it'll be changed so that it is. All of that said, regardless of the words included, it is kind of crazy for an exchange of words to be determined to have three-times greater impact than a significant in-game penalty such as defensive holding. Whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 All of that said, regardless of the words included, it is kind of crazy for an exchange of words to be determined to have three-times greater impact than a significant in-game penalty such as defensive holding. Whatever. franchises don't get sued for defensive holding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 We're all just Richie Incognito kinda guys living in a Jonathan Martin kinda country. mamas don't let your babies grow up to be Richie. dont let them haze teammates and make them go nuts make them attend stanford and harvard and such Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJetsFan Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 How many teams will get flagged for calling Tom Brady the n-word this season? What? Nancy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 What if its to be used as a term of endearment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 franchises don't get sued for defensive holding. Franchises aren't exempt from lawsuits because they were penalized 15 yards. The point is, that has absolutely nothing to do with what happens on the field of play, which is what penalties are supposed to be related to. Perhaps next the NFL should start having on-field penalties against home teams who don't sell out their stadiums. And it can be an even bigger penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 mamas don't let your babies grow up to be Richie. dont let them haze teammates and make them go nuts make them attend stanford and harvard and such Don't they still make you do the elephant walk to get into Harvard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Franchises aren't exempt from lawsuits because they were penalized 15 yards. The point is, that has absolutely nothing to do with what happens on the field of play, which is what penalties are supposed to be related to. Perhaps next the NFL should start having on-field penalties against home teams who don't sell out their stadiums. And it can be an even bigger penalty. The point of the NFL is entertainment. the section of the population who find grown men lobbing racial slurs at each other entertaining shrinks by the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peebag Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 So I'm assuming "c*cks*cking motherf*cker" is still allowed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 So I'm assuming "c*cks*cking motherf*cker" is still allowed? Ask Alec Baldwin As my you know what Nas always said..."it's never your enemy that gets you, it's always your own people" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenseed4 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 The N-word will be replaced with something else, "Uncle Tom", "Monica"...players who try to use derogatory language to get into their opponents' heads will find a loop-hole and/or a way to say it when they're 10-yds away from the nearest official. Stupid rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 So I'm assuming "c*cks*cking motherf*cker" is still allowed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.