By AJ Hayes
It's interesting how the NFL promotes itself as the all-American sport while making its players follow a zipped-lip policy you might have expected to find behind the Iron Curtain. That's the Iron Curtain of the former USSR, not the Steel Curtain of the '70s Pittsburgh Steelers.
For all the times football fans have had to sit through incessant flag waving John Mellencamp's "This is Our County" Chevy ads during NFL telecasts you might have thought that the NFL big wigs would have freedom of speech as a basic right of it's employees.
The Ravens' Samari Rolle
But when you see what happened to four Baltimore Ravens players this past week after they spoke out about what they perceived as poor officiating calls and insulting treatment that got personal from game officials, during a very tough 27-24 loss to New England on Monday Night Football (Dec. 3) you would realize that the NFL believes the first amendment rights apply only to the shot callers, not the grunts who break their necks (sometimes, literally) so the NFL stuffed shirts can also stuff their wallets on a weekly basis.
After a game filled with questionable calls against Baltimore's players, Ravens players - Bart Scott, Samari Rolle, Chris McAlister, and Derrick Mason and - made negative comments about the standard of officiating in the contest.
Rolle, McAlister and Mason were fined $15,000 each. Scott got tagged for $25,000 because he also threw a refs yellow flag into the stands.
Most galling was the fines levied against Rolle who publicly complained about the degrading treatment he received from a ref who repeatedly called him "boy."
"I have a wife and three kids. Don't call me a boy," said Rolle.
"He was just standing over Samari in an imposing fashion and was just going off on him," Scott said.
Rolle was in the wrong; the NFL said, because they said, McKineley, who like Rolle is African-American, didn't insult Rolle with the word "boy" in the way the player perceived it.
Huh?
In what world does the offending party determine what someone else my find abusive or not and then demand you cut them a check for being offended by them.
Apparently in the NFL's world.
This is our county indeed.
Just don't upset the apple cart, boy.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (2)
While I agree with you that the NFL stifles free speech for no good reason I disagree with you about the offended party determining what is abusive language. I think the standard should be what a reasonable person would find offensive and not the standard of allowing any thin-skinned crybaby to lower the standard to the point where it ceases to be a standard. Aren't your positions on these two issues diametrically opposed? If freedom of speech is needed, it is needed to protect offensive speech, not the bland and boring speech that no one can object to.
Posted by S.T.Kulig | December 10, 2007 02:56 PM
Ravens for president. Good player
Posted by Leren | January 17, 2008 02:02 PM