[News] Fleury defies NHL by wearing special mask for Wild's Native American Heritage night

[Tuco]

Will the NHL fine him?

[fotze2]

I swear the league just does dumb things to whip internet nerds to argue about it, even though it’s the dumbest crap imaginable, as a way to solidify their base. It’s necessary maintenance to solidly their idiot base.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by fotze2

I swear the league just does dumb things to whip internet nerds to argue about it, even though it’s the dumbest crap imaginable, as a way to solidify their base. It’s necessary maintenance to solidly their idiot base.

As someone who self-identifies as an Idiot, I think I should resent that.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I don't think this has anything to do with this SPECIFIC issue only. I think what the NHL is really trying to do is prevent a huge issue later on. Supporting Native Americans is an almost universally accepted cause right now, with the vast majority (other than racists, obviously) getting behind this. Of course the NHL is not against it. This is one of those really easy 'black and white' issues.


The NHL wanted to fully back Pride, and announced that they were all for it. Then a handful of players didn't want to support it, and that drew a lot of attention to those players and to the NHL as a whole in how they deal with it. Still, that's a fairly popular cause.


What happens when there is a cause that is a little more grey? Right now the easy one to pick out is if a player wants to show support for either Israel or the Palestinians. That's going to draw a lot of negative attention from the other side. This will create a tonne of controversy.


I think this is the position that the NHL finds itself in. They can't allow the easy black and white, universally accepted causes to be supported, because then when someone does want to support something that is a little bit more on the 'grey' side, when the NHL ends up getting involved to put a stop to it, it will be taken as the NHL supporting the other side.


I don't agree with the NHL not allowing Fleury to wear the mask (and good on him for wearing it anyway), but I do understand the rationale (I think anyway - the above is how I personally make sense of the situation).



It is also difficult to compare the NHL to the other sports. I really don't pay attention to baseball, so I can't speak to it, but the NFL is a gigantic monster, and it can withstand a lot more controversy than the NHL. The NBA has the most marketable athletes in all of professional sports with their own brands, and they can probably withstand more controversy (and more rules) than the NHL can.


I would like to see the NHL back more good causes, but I also understand that this then becomes a slippery slope at some point, with some players wanting to back something that he may feel is very important, but may not be a very popular sentiment. Then what? I think the NHL feels it has to either allow everything, or simply allow nothing. At this point in time, they view nothing as the easier and safer road, and I am not sure I actually disagree with that. Doesn't mean I agree with it either, but I do think that this is the issue here, not whether or not the NHL supports Native American Heritage, or has anything to do with racism because the owners don't have enough diversity among themselves.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I don't think this has anything to do with this SPECIFIC issue only. I think what the NHL is really trying to do is prevent a huge issue later on. Supporting Native Americans is an almost universally accepted cause right now, with the vast majority (other than racists, obviously) getting behind this. Of course the NHL is not against it. This is one of those really easy 'black and white' issues.


The NHL wanted to fully back Pride, and announced that they were all for it. Then a handful of players didn't want to support it, and that drew a lot of attention to those players and to the NHL as a whole in how they deal with it. Still, that's a fairly popular cause.
{snip}

There's a pretty easy way to deal with that...let the clubs go ahead with their (relatively performative "___ nights") and let the players either (1) wear the appropriate jersey or (2) not.


For those that fall into (2)...do not allow journalists to distract them prior to or after the game. That's it. Simply no comment or access allowed.


Their statement of non-support is made by not wearing the "______ jersey" that night. End of story.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by devo22

we are not talking about promoting whatever cause they like, we are talking about the cause the NHL team is celebrating that very night. Comparing that to NRA stickers or pro-life slogans makes no sense at all.

OK. So if the NHL actually supports indigenous recognition, then I guess the people saying this all about conservative white men being exclusionary have it wrong.

If you were the NHL commissioner, what policy would put in place regarding what players could or couldn’t wear on their equipment and jerseys?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

So last night Fleury's junior team had a specialty night, CBU at the Nest.

The Cape Breton Eagles wore speciality jerseys for the game. They were Cape Breton Univerity colors, they put up CBU logos, and geared as much attention to the university as possible.

Now let's say one of the players was committed to St. FX, or Dalhousie next year, or was taking distance courses from another post-secondary institution.

Should they be allowed to not wear the CBU themed Eagles jersey?

Now I get the NHL does speciality jerseys for warmups only, not in games like junior.

In terms of players stickers and saying on their helmets... to my knowledge only goalies can do that. I suppose they already could put hate speech or inclusive speech on their helmets?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Eliminate individualized goalie masks.

White, black or one (and only one) of your team's colours.

Masks may be adorned only with team and/or sponsor logo.

Of course this doesn't take away the fact that goaltenders are individuals.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If you were the NHL commissioner, what policy would put in place regarding what players could or couldn’t wear on their equipment and jerseys?

Eliminate all specialty/theme nights.

During warmups and games, you can only wear your approved uniform.

Uniform can only contain recognized club colors and team logo(s).

Stick tape can only be some combination of black and/or white and/or team color(s).

[Bandwagon Surfer]

The reality is there is no possible neutral position. I know I tried with my business too, but the extreme bigotry that people wear out in the open now makes being neutral impossible.

With my business we tried for a while, but we now have to fly the LGBTQ+ everyone is welcome flag and have strict rules against bigoty.

The problem is the people who hate others for being born gay, or trans, or with a different skin color, or whatever. Their position is one of complete intolerance to any pf the groups they hate. If they so much see someone in the groups they hate, they go on full attack mode. To them treating others as equals is an attack on them.

I had a number of these bigots attack other customers for daring exist and shop at the same store and them. Usually screaming nonessential babble about woke or something, but some have tried to physically assault others too.

Everyone else is fine. I have never once had an LGTBQ person attack anyone else in my store. All very polite and tolerant of others. Tbey are just no longer willing to hide in the shadows to please bigots.

So I had to make a choice. I understand why no business wants to make a choice. It would be so nice if that was possible. But at the end of the day it is like trying to keep a fox and chickens in the same coup. You either have to stand up to the bigots, or you are supporting them attacking everyone else.

[Poe969]

I haven't read a single post in this thread but I am SO offended. I have no clue why, or who offended me, but this is outrageous!

Am I doing it right?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I don't think this has anything to do with this SPECIFIC issue only. I think what the NHL is really trying to do is prevent a huge issue later on. Supporting Native Americans is an almost universally accepted cause right now, with the vast majority (other than racists, obviously) getting behind this. Of course the NHL is not against it. This is one of those really easy 'black and white' issues.


The NHL wanted to fully back Pride, and announced that they were all for it. Then a handful of players didn't want to support it, and that drew a lot of attention to those players and to the NHL as a whole in how they deal with it. Still, that's a fairly popular cause.


What happens when there is a cause that is a little more grey? Right now the easy one to pick out is if a player wants to show support for either Israel or the Palestinians. That's going to draw a lot of negative attention from the other side. This will create a tonne of controversy.


I think this is the position that the NHL finds itself in. They can't allow the easy black and white, universally accepted causes to be supported, because then when someone does want to support something that is a little bit more on the 'grey' side, when the NHL ends up getting involved to put a stop to it, it will be taken as the NHL supporting the other side.


I don't agree with the NHL not allowing Fleury to wear the mask (and good on him for wearing it anyway), but I do understand the rationale (I think anyway - the above is how I personally make sense of the situation).



It is also difficult to compare the NHL to the other sports. I really don't pay attention to baseball, so I can't speak to it, but the NFL is a gigantic monster, and it can withstand a lot more controversy than the NHL. The NBA has the most marketable athletes in all of professional sports with their own brands, and they can probably withstand more controversy (and more rules) than the NHL can.


I would like to see the NHL back more good causes, but I also understand that this then becomes a slippery slope at some point, with some players wanting to back something that he may feel is very important, but may not be a very popular sentiment. Then what? I think the NHL feels it has to either allow everything, or simply allow nothing. At this point in time, they view nothing as the easier and safer road, and I am not sure I actually disagree with that. Doesn't mean I agree with it either, but I do think that this is the issue here, not whether or not the NHL supports Native American Heritage, or has anything to do with racism because the owners don't have enough diversity among themselves.

They still play for a team, and a coach. And if they don’t care, then there is the organization. If none of those parties have an issue, then it’s none of the leagues business.

[CSharp]

Kudos to Fleury and the Wild Organization for going through with wearing the mask in warm-up and in the game. Fleury will take on any fines assessed.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Salt Water Cowboy #10

I think all goalies have to get their mask art passed by the NHL before wearing it in a game. But I have no idea what is offensive or antagonizing about that mask. Or why the NHL would be worried about it. I think Fliery should’ve just used it as his main mask. Without telling the NHL the significance. If he had just hired the artist like any mask painter, and just worn it, the NHL wouldn’t have been able to be so silly

It has everything to do with the NHL scheming way too hard but actually ending up looking even more stupid. With the backlash they got for banning the pride jerseys because of a select few from a small minority, they wanted to show the public that they weren't being discriminatory against just the LGBTQ group, but are applying their rule to every group. Pretty much what Reggie mentioned below.

Complete idiots.

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

This is all about the NHL being afraid some goaltender wears a rainbow themed mask.

What is boils down to.

As a consequence, everything else gets tossed aside.

Hockey and the NHL actually isn't for everyone and the league has shown this time and time again. It isn't for the LGBTQ group. It isn't for Russians who have nothing to do with the Russian government. Now, it isn't for the Indigenous people.

Originally Posted by Goriders

How do you know they are old white guys?

Aren’t you doing the same thing?

I feel for you!!! ThE WhiTE gUyS coNStaNTLy gET dIScrimiNAtEd AgAINst aND iT nEEdS tO StOp!!!

Originally Posted by bluejays

Some instances appear to be silly on the NHLs part, but I'm going to take the contrarian approach here and say I agree with the NHL. Sports is entertainment but also a business. Seemingly a lot of the social stuff the NHL has been promoting because of social norming have been marred in controversy. If now they're saying any special nights, military, LGBT, anything, is barred and they don't want these cracks to bend the rules, good. They're not against any of these things in particular, but they're saying we're in the entertainment business and not going to open ourselves up to controversy - we're just not going to open it up for anything. I have no problem with that because they're drawing the line pretty clearly now. At this point I have no problem with that approach because it's even across the board.

But they're not saying that, are they? Military night is still happening, no? Actually, makes me wonder if any goalie has any nods to the US military on their helmet? I remember one of the Rangers goalies was very patriotic to America and had something to pay his respects to them, just can't remember if it was military themed.

[dissentowner]

Who gives a crap if a player wants to express something they believe in or is important to them through their equipment? Have we really become that sensitive as a society? It isn't directly hurting anyone, who cares.

[MoneyGuy]

Has the league released a statement outlining its rationale for this? I’d like to know the reasoning.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Eliminate all specialty/theme nights.

During warmups and games, you can only wear your approved uniform.

Uniform can only contain recognized club colors and team logo(s).

Stick tape can only be some combination of black and/or white and/or team color(s).

In other words, be an uninspiring, unmitigated "standard"...so that nobody can be offended, nobody can be an individual, nobody is allowed to exist outside of some rigidly defined idea of "what is acceptable"?


Is that what you're saying?


No thanks.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

lol can you imagine wanting to eliminate cool goalie masks?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

In other words, be an uninspiring, unmitigated "standard"...so that nobody can be offended, nobody can be an individual, nobody is allowed to exist outside of some rigidly defined idea of "what is acceptable"?


Is that what you're saying?


No thanks.

Are there any leagues that offer very much "individuality" in terms of uniform? Everything is pretty much standard across uniforms for team sports with the exception of maybe the NBA and shoes. The NBA also allowed those slogans on the jerseys during Covid but that is gone now. NFL allows/allowed funky shoes for one or two weeks but everything else is standardized.

[saillias]

Seems more noticeable than ever now that the NHL front office needs an overhaul, some guys clearly need to retire and get replaced with some fresh faces.

They just seem like an obstacle to the success of the league, their policies seem tired and arbitrary, and they are falling behind the times culturally. Their business sense seems to be lagging as well.