Demario Davis wins appeal on Man of God headband fine (2 Viewers)

[St. PJ]

lol...so they fined him because they are anti-christian?? nice persecution complex you have there

what if a player wore a rainbow headband that said 'god is gay'?? how would you feel about that player being fined??

I'd feel the player got what he deserved for being divisive, and that I hope that player doesn't die truly believing that.

 

[antipop]

I'd feel the player got what he deserved for being divisive, and that I hope that player doesn't die truly believing that.

of course you feel that way

 

[Alan12]

What gets me is that this country was founded on freedom of speech, yet if you exercise that freedom, the NFL tries to fine you. Uh, what was the point of me serving my country for, if only a certain few have freedoms, but not everyone?

“Freedom of speech” refers to the government prosecuting citizens for what they say. The NFL is a private entity and as any other business can, set forth guidelines as to what their employees can and can not do while under their employment.

It has nothing to do with free speech, just as it has nothing to do with religion.

 

[antipop]

“Freedom of speech” refers to the government prosecuting citizens for what they say. The NFL is a private entity and as any other business can, set forth guidelines as to what their employees can and can not do while under their employment.

It has nothing to do with free speech, just as it has nothing to do with religion.

it's really amazing that this still has to be explained to adults

 

[BiloxiSaint1]

 

[So_$@int Silly]

Love dat dude DD. He is a beast. Geauxxx eat and devour Sunday my brother.

 

[St.Freethinker]

This is the problem with NFL corporate office, as well as officiating. They simply do not see the big picture, nor understand the "why" behind the rule. Therefore, there is no common sense as to how the rule is applied. Whatever legal or scholarly butt crevasse language the rule is written in - that is exactly how it will be officiated. This is why they are constantly having to tinker with the definition of a catch, for example. Common sense and what your eyes witness do not prevail over legal language that paints the definition of a catch into a corner that attempts to standardize something that is different in every occurance. That's low hanging fruit though. How about "illegal contact" or "block in the back" or ______? How many penalties are called each week, 30 yards away from having any impact on the play, from gaining any advantage whatsoever, yet by the letter of the law (not the intent of the rule) become a penalty that is punitive to the point that the punishment does not fit the "crime"?

When it comes to officiating, if no advantage was gained, and the borderline "infraction" was on the opposite side of the field or is flat out ticky tacky at best, don't throw the damn flag. I understand officials aren't trying to judge intent on most fouls (nor should they), but a hand inadvertently grazing a helmet, having no effect on the head or neck of the QB whom it grazed, is not the same as a Vontaze Burfict blow and should not automatically equal a 15 yard personal foul. An official can damn well have the common sense to distinguish whether an advantage was gained or whether a blow is unneccessary. Before any hypocrite NFL mouthpiece says "we can't have them judging every penalty for intent or gravity" I say bull forking shirt, it's what they do already. 12 men on the field is definitive, and requires no judgment.. either there were 12 men or there weren't. Whether a receiver was interfered with - well, that IS a judgment call, and it seems even with video evidence, integrity and honest judgment is severely lacking.

The same goes for Demario Davis' headband. That particular rule is in place to prohibit players from self promotion or branding, and to protect the NFL's interest, because if a player has any personal message per se, it could be construed that the NFL supports said message or position if they allow it. I get that if you would like to wear a Tabasco or some other branded headband, the NFL has to be making money on it. I get that players can't wear a headband with the message "death to ___ political party" or some kind of divisive message. But "Man of God" on a headband is no different from "Man of God" tattood on his arm. Davis could change his last name to "Man of God" to really rub the NFL's face in it, Ochocinco style. As to how it breaks the rule - "subject to fines" requires someone's interpretation and judgment. Let's be honest - whomever hand that fine out is most likely someone who has in issue with Christianity, because "Man of God" in no way hinders the NFL's brand, and in no way says the NFL supports God - if they did, they damn sure wouldn't have the majority of thier games on Sunday. The ONLY reason Davis won that appeal is because of the public backlash from the NFL's customers.

All other things being equal, would your opinion be the same if it said "Man of Satan" instead.

"But "Man of Satan" on a headband is no different from "Man of Satan" tattood on his arm. ', "...in no way says the NFL supports Satan"

 

[St. PJ]

All other things being equal, would your opinion be the same if it said "Man of Satan" instead.

"But "Man of Satan" on a headband is no different from "Man of Satan" tattood on his arm. ', "...in no way says the NFL supports Satan"

Yeah, my opinion would be the same about the "transgression", but my opinion of Davis would drastically change.