Very poor performance against UNC at Martin Stadium in the rain last night, losing to #9 Carolina,
4-1. Offense had some chances, but our team defense was substandard, letting UNC have some relatively uncontested scores.

Video showed team looking slow and without fire most of game, coming after a last second CAA loss at Delaware last weekend. Our coach, in his post-game interview, alluded to our disappointing lack of fire for such a big game. We must regroup quickly to save the season.

This team has some of the best recruits from the state high school ranks...right now we are underperforming.

Rain all day and throughout the night held crowd to 375 folks. With decent weather we would have doubled that.

Please, let's keep this civil. I wasn't going to post this, but no sense ignoring reality.


http://www.vagazette.com/sports/inside-w...story.html

One Tribe. One Family.

As a Roman Catholic, kneeling is more reverential than standing, so I don't get the kneeling part of this. I find it funny in a way.

As a Northerner whose relative fought for the Blue in the Civil War under the Stars and Stripes, I really don't get it ... would they rather stand for the Stars and Bars?

As an alum who donates to Tribe athletics, well, if this keeps up, I will re-think whether to continue to donate.

As a practical matter, simply keep the teams in the locker room while the anthem is being played ... they can kneel there, in the locker room, and say a prayer ... if that's still allowed.

Civil enough? :-)

Yeah I've got no issue with it

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I think Petitt's statement lays out their stance pretty well.

I guess so but it seems very self absorbing to me. It's a team and he is wearing a jersey that represents the school. It's not about him at that point. He can individually express his feelings somewhere else.

When I see the flag, I think of sacrifice. I think of all the young men and women, younger than these two, who gave it all up fighting under this flag. They didn't get a chance to attend college or play sports. They didn't take a knee at Omaha Beach, Vietnam, Iraq or anywhere else.

That's why I think this gesture is utterly disrespectful to so many, embarrassing to the the men's soccer program and totally inappropriate with a W&M team uniform.

(09-24-2016 04:26 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  I guess so but it seems very self absorbing to me. It's a team and he is wearing a jersey that represents the school. It's not about him at that point. He can individually express his feelings somewhere else.

When I see the flag, I think of sacrifice. I think of all the young men and women, younger than these two, who gave it all up fighting under this flag. They didn't get a chance to attend college or play sports. They didn't take a knee at Omaha Beach, Vietnam, Iraq or anywhere else.

That's why I think this gesture is utterly disrespectful to so many, embarrassing to the the men's soccer program and totally inappropriate with a W&M team uniform.

I've never been a VA Tech fan, but I like the way Buzz Williams addressed this with his team. If the players have an issue, the coach should help them arrange an appropriate way to do so.

(09-24-2016 04:26 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  I guess so but it seems very self absorbing to me. It's a team and he is wearing a jersey that represents the school. It's not about him at that point. He can individually express his feelings somewhere else.

When I see the flag, I think of sacrifice. I think of all the young men and women, younger than these two, who gave it all up fighting under this flag. They didn't get a chance to attend college or play sports. They didn't take a knee at Omaha Beach, Vietnam, Iraq or anywhere else.

That's why I think this gesture is utterly disrespectful to so many, embarrassing to the the men's soccer program and totally inappropriate with a W&M team uniform.

Based on the national response from veterans, many feel that they fought in all those places so that we have a country where people have the right to take a knee. (One story)

One of the key points of doing this during the national anthem is to spur discussions. Finding an appropriate way to protest is basically giving the people who don't like the protest a way to easily ignore it.

(09-24-2016 07:48 AM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 04:26 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  I guess so but it seems very self absorbing to me. It's a team and he is wearing a jersey that represents the school. It's not about him at that point. He can individually express his feelings somewhere else.

When I see the flag, I think of sacrifice. I think of all the young men and women, younger than these two, who gave it all up fighting under this flag. They didn't get a chance to attend college or play sports. They didn't take a knee at Omaha Beach, Vietnam, Iraq or anywhere else.

That's why I think this gesture is utterly disrespectful to so many, embarrassing to the the men's soccer program and totally inappropriate with a W&M team uniform.

Based on the national response from veterans, many feel that they fought in all those places so that we have a country where people have the right to take a knee. (One story)

One of the key points of doing this during the national anthem is to spur discussions. Finding an appropriate way to protest is basically giving the people who don't like the protest a way to easily ignore it.

No one is denying his rights. I guess he could run across the field burning the flag as well.

It is still utterly disrespectful to many, embarrasing to the men's soccer program and totally inappropriate when wearing a W&M jersey.

He's representing the school with that jersey. He has no right or authority to make a statement for the entire University.

(09-24-2016 08:02 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 07:48 AM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 04:26 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  I guess so but it seems very self absorbing to me. It's a team and he is wearing a jersey that represents the school. It's not about him at that point. He can individually express his feelings somewhere else.

When I see the flag, I think of sacrifice. I think of all the young men and women, younger than these two, who gave it all up fighting under this flag. They didn't get a chance to attend college or play sports. They didn't take a knee at Omaha Beach, Vietnam, Iraq or anywhere else.

That's why I think this gesture is utterly disrespectful to so many, embarrassing to the the men's soccer program and totally inappropriate with a W&M team uniform.

Based on the national response from veterans, many feel that they fought in all those places so that we have a country where people have the right to take a knee. (One story)

One of the key points of doing this during the national anthem is to spur discussions. Finding an appropriate way to protest is basically giving the people who don't like the protest a way to easily ignore it.

No one is denying his rights. I guess he could run across the field burning the flag as well.

It is still utterly disrespectful to many, embarrassing to the men's soccer program and totally inappropriate when wearing a W&M jersey.

He's representing the school with that jersey. He has no right or authority to make a statement for the entire University.

It's objectively none of those things. All of those statements are your feelings about what he's doing. From your first post, "That's why I think this gesture is..."

Also, he's next to 10 other W&M jerseys in the picture alone. The only statement made about the entire University is that its athletes are allowed to make their own decisions.

(09-24-2016 08:41 AM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 08:02 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 07:48 AM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 04:26 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  I guess so but it seems very self absorbing to me. It's a team and he is wearing a jersey that represents the school. It's not about him at that point. He can individually express his feelings somewhere else.

When I see the flag, I think of sacrifice. I think of all the young men and women, younger than these two, who gave it all up fighting under this flag. They didn't get a chance to attend college or play sports. They didn't take a knee at Omaha Beach, Vietnam, Iraq or anywhere else.

That's why I think this gesture is utterly disrespectful to so many, embarrassing to the the men's soccer program and totally inappropriate with a W&M team uniform.

Based on the national response from veterans, many feel that they fought in all those places so that we have a country where people have the right to take a knee. (One story)

One of the key points of doing this during the national anthem is to spur discussions. Finding an appropriate way to protest is basically giving the people who don't like the protest a way to easily ignore it.

No one is denying his rights. I guess he could run across the field burning the flag as well.

It is still utterly disrespectful to many, embarrassing to the men's soccer program and totally inappropriate when wearing a W&M jersey.

He's representing the school with that jersey. He has no right or authority to make a statement for the entire University.

It's objectively none of those things. All of those statements are your feelings about what he's doing. From your first post, "That's why I think this gesture is..."

Also, he's next to 10 other W&M jerseys in the picture alone. The only statement made about the entire University is that its athletes are allowed to make their own decisions.

While kneeling during the anthem may, or may not, be inappropriate, let's not pretend that athletes are free to make their own decisions when representing the College. It's a privilege, and there are behavioral expectations that go along with being part of a W&M team.
Some are departmental, and some are team specific. My personal view is that it is inappropriate to make political statements when representing the College and your team.

(09-24-2016 08:52 AM)Tribe4SF Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 08:41 AM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  Also, he's next to 10 other W&M jerseys in the picture alone. The only statement made about the entire University is that its athletes are allowed to make their own decisions.

While kneeling during the anthem may, or may not, be inappropriate, let's not pretend that athletes are free to make their own decisions when representing the College. It's a privilege, and there are behavioral expectations that go along with being part of a W&M team.

I agree with that, but his protesting coupled with the team and the University taking no action makes the statement that athletes are allowed to express themselves with regard to this social issue.

(09-24-2016 08:02 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  No one is denying his rights. I guess he could run across the field burning the flag as well.

It is still utterly disrespectful to many, embarrasing to the men's soccer program and totally inappropriate when wearing a W&M jersey.

He's representing the school with that jersey. He has no right or authority to make a statement for the entire University.

Interesting. I never assume that an individual's protest speaks for the entire school. Even if the whole team had knelt I'd assume that was a team decision. Short of some top down directive from Reveley or Driscoll, I'm going to assume that players speak for themselves.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Anyway, our guys tied a top UNCW at their place. That's the same UNCW team that just beat #5 Charlotte.

A great result for the good guys.

One Tribe. One Family.

Unless these free speech squelching universities are going to allow unfettered free speech and action, they need to clamp down on this nonsense. I'm in a position of some authority at UNCW, and I can promise you that if our athletes begin this behavior, the administration is going to have to address their overall policy and then allowing students and athletes to "protest" in any manner they see fit, at any time. It's all or nothing, not just the BS the liberal admin approves of.

(09-24-2016 08:52 AM)Tribe4SF Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 08:41 AM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 08:02 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 07:48 AM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 04:26 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  I guess so but it seems very self absorbing to me. It's a team and he is wearing a jersey that represents the school. It's not about him at that point. He can individually express his feelings somewhere else.

When I see the flag, I think of sacrifice. I think of all the young men and women, younger than these two, who gave it all up fighting under this flag. They didn't get a chance to attend college or play sports. They didn't take a knee at Omaha Beach, Vietnam, Iraq or anywhere else.

That's why I think this gesture is utterly disrespectful to so many, embarrassing to the the men's soccer program and totally inappropriate with a W&M team uniform.

Based on the national response from veterans, many feel that they fought in all those places so that we have a country where people have the right to take a knee. (One story)

One of the key points of doing this during the national anthem is to spur discussions. Finding an appropriate way to protest is basically giving the people who don't like the protest a way to easily ignore it.

No one is denying his rights. I guess he could run across the field burning the flag as well.

It is still utterly disrespectful to many, embarrassing to the men's soccer program and totally inappropriate when wearing a W&M jersey.

He's representing the school with that jersey. He has no right or authority to make a statement for the entire University.

It's objectively none of those things. All of those statements are your feelings about what he's doing. From your first post, "That's why I think this gesture is..."

Also, he's next to 10 other W&M jerseys in the picture alone. The only statement made about the entire University is that its athletes are allowed to make their own decisions.

While kneeling during the anthem may, or may not, be inappropriate, let's not pretend that athletes are free to make their own decisions when representing the College. It's a privilege, and there are behavioral expectations that go along with being part of a W&M team.
Some are departmental, and some are team specific. My personal view is that it is inappropriate to make political statements when representing the College and your team.

+1

From the First Ammendment Center:


The U.S. Supreme Court has said that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate.”


What has the Supreme Court said about free expression?
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided several cases involving the First Amendment rights of public school students, but the most often cited are Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988).
In Tinker, the Supreme Court said that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The court ruled that Iowa public school officials violated the First Amendment rights of several students by suspending them for wearing black armbands to school.
The court noted that the students’ wearing of armbands to protest U.S. involvement in Vietnam was a form of symbolic speech “akin to pure speech.” The school officials tried to justify their actions, saying that the armbands would disrupt the school environment.
But, the Supreme Court said that “in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.” School officials cannot silence student speech simply because they dislike it or it is controversial or unpopular. Rather, according to the court, school officials must reasonably forecast that student speech will cause a “substantial disruption” or “material interference” with school activities or “invade the rights of others” before they can censor student expression. The Tinker case is considered the high-water mark for student First Amendment rights.
In the 1980s, a more conservative Supreme Court cut back on students’ free-expression rights in Fraser and Hazelwood. In Fraser, school officials suspended a high school student for giving a lewd speech before the student assembly. Even though Matthew Fraser’s speech was part of a student-government campaign, the high court distinguished the sexual nature of the address from the political speech in Tinker.
“Surely, it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse,” the court wrote in its 1986 decision. “The undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior.”
Two years later the Supreme Court further restricted student free-expression rights in Hazelwood. In that 1988 decision, several students sued after a Missouri high school principal censored two articles in the school newspaper. The articles, written by students dealt with divorce and teen pregnancy. The principal said he thought the subject matter was inappropriate for some of the younger students.
The students argued that the principal violated their First Amendment rights because he did not meet the Tinker standard — he did not show the articles would lead to a substantial disruption. Instead of examining the case under Tinker, however, the Supreme Court developed a new standard for what it termed school-sponsored speech.
Under this standard, school officials can regulate school-sponsored student expression as long as the officials’ actions “are reasonably related to a legitimate pedagogical interest.” In plain English, this means school officials must show that they have a reasonable educational reason for their actions. The court broadly defined the school’s authority to regulate school-sponsored expression, writing that school officials could censor material which would “associate the school with anything other than neutrality on matters of political controversy.”



One Tribe. One Family.

I really don't see how this is different (from a freedom perspective) from a player praying on the field before the game. We have football players who do that before every contest and I fully support that too.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

When one prays, to my knowledge, no disrespect is given... and certainly it is not intentional disrespect.

When one does not stand at attention for the presentation of the colors, and for the playing of the anthem, disrespect is given ... intentionally.

There is a difference.

For example, one can disagree with the President, but it would be disrespectful to intentionally sit when the President enters the room.

Disrespect for the flag and anthem should be discouraged, not encouraged.

That's why the kneeling part is amusing to me. It's actually more respectful than standing.

What alpha male willingly kneels, unless to show deference and respect?

(09-26-2016 07:42 AM)nj alum Wrote:  When one prays, to my knowledge, no disrespect is given... and certainly it is not intentional disrespect.

When one does not stand at attention for the presentation of the colors, and for the playing of the anthem, disrespect is given ... intentionally.

There is a difference.

For example, one can disagree with the President, but it would be disrespectful to intentionally sit when the President enters the room.

Disrespect for the flag and anthem should be discouraged, not encouraged.

That's why the kneeling part is amusing to me. It's actually more respectful than standing.

What alpha male willingly kneels, unless to show deference and respect?

I think this may be why it shifted to kneeling. The first instance was Kaepernick didn't stand and stayed sitting. For many, it has moved to kneeling, and this may be a way of saying there's not an intent to disrespect just for fun, rather the need to draw attention to an issue. Can't speak for everyone, but that seems logical.