burningmetal

I predicted this message would come, and you were the one who was most likely to send it.

You can call it a rule, or you can call it a guideline. I call it a rule, because there is no reason to say "should", if you do not intend for the players to stand, or else face some kind of penalty. The word "should" simply means that the league can CHOOSE not to do anything about it, which is exactly what happened the last couple of years. The "should" was a nudge by the league to make the players not embarrass said league as they have, but when it came down to facing the embarrassment the league was, and is, weak.

It matters not to me whether something is in the game operations manual or in the rule book. Because there is nothing in the rule book that says that players acquitted of crimes by the court can still be suspended by the league. The league makes up rules on the fly, and this is just the problem. They enforce whatever is convenient for them, even if they have to invent something. They also have rules that say a certain type of offense carries a SPECIFIC number of games you are to be suspended, only to be doubled when the league decides they want to make an example out of someone.

Now they have changed their policy, leaving the door still wide open for players to get off scot-free for doing something that the league doesn't want to have to deal with. Everything is politically motivated with them. It's why they hand out inconsistent punishments depending on whatever they believe will make them look "socially responsible", and it's why they refuse to take a hard stance on player conduct regarding the Anthem.

If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.