The NFLPA has filed a non-injury grievance on the Bengals. Caution, this article contains a lot of speculation and opinion.
The official NFLPA statement reads:
The NFLPA has filed a non-injury grievance and a system arbitrator case on behalf of free agent safety Eric Reid. Prior to the start of the current NFL off-season, our Union directed the agents of free agent players who had participated in peaceful on-field demonstrations to collect, memorialize and report any relevant information about potential violations of the Collective Bargaining Agreement by teams. These cases were filed based upon the following:
– There is no League rule that prohibits players from demonstrating during the national anthem.
– The NFL has made it clear both publicly and to the NFLPA that they would respect the rights of players to demonstrate.
– The Collective Bargaining Agreement definitively states that League (NFL) rules supersede anyconflicting club rules.
– According to our information, a club appears to have based its decision not to sign a playerbased on the player’s statement that he would challenge the implementation of a club’s policy prohibiting demonstration, which is contrary to the League policy.
– At least one club owner has asked preemployment interview questions about a player’s intent to demonstrate. We believe these questions are improper, given League policy.
Our Union continues to monitor these developments.
So to sum that up… the Bengals broke the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Basically, you can’t decide not to sign someone because of their political beliefs and the way they demonstrate it.
I am an avid Mike Brown hater. As much if not more than anyone. However, I think this grievance is some bullshit. Now don’t get me wrong, I wanted Reid badly. However, Mike Brown did not have to sign him.
.@WhitlockJason doesn’t have a problem with the Bengals owner asking Eric Reid about on-field protests pic.twitter.com/829am4xlVI
— Speak For Yourself (@SFY) April 11, 2018
Think about it like this; You’re applying for a job, and they have a set of rules. In the interview, you tell them that you refuse to follow these rules.
Are they going to hire you? No, absolutely not.
That’s basically what happened here.
But the rule states the Bengals cannot decide their decision to sign Reid based off his “political behavior.” However, there’s no evidence saying the Bengals based off their decision just by that. Of course it was a factor, but remember how we drafted Jessie Bates III in the 2nd round?
Maybe the Bengals brought Reid in as a backup plan, just in case they couldn’t draft a safety. Also, Reid can play strong and free safety, but Jessie Bates is a true free safety. The Bengals needed a true free safety. It was also reported be the Bengals very own Geoff Hobson (the Bengals head writer) that Reid was a backup plan for after the draft.
The rule itself is dumb. However, if Mike Brown did base his decision off him kneeling, then he broke the rule. However, the NFL is a business, and if Mike Brown sees that as a distraction, then why should he have to sign him? Seems like the question is fair.
The punishment (if the NFLPA wins the case) can vary from a fine to someone in the Bengals front office losing their job. So it’s possible Mike Brown could lose his job over this. That’s actually the best cast scenario for Bengals fans, and it’s also NEVER going to happen.
Worst case scenario is Bengals lose a late round pick. The penalty will likely be a fine. But you know it’s not the Bengals without some off-season drama that will undoubtedly carry into the season.
