Ban on rainbow tape - did the NHL think this through?

[Yukon Joe]

What the hell is going on when a company's policies can apparently be classified as "Say Gay" and "Don't Say Gay".

Given it was a very small number of players (five?) out of 800 that, within their rights, made an individual choice to not participate fully (they did play in the game) would seem to give a clear indication that the league is "inclusive" would it not?

When the work "still needs to be done", it will be never be done.

So keeping on the business topic...

I don't think it was even 5 players - I think it was two (Provorov and Reimer). But to be honest - the media didn't focus on all the players who did wear Pride jerseys, but rather on the two who didn't. The league felt this was a bad look, so banned all themed jerseys in future. Then just a few days ago they banned any coloured tape during special event games (as far as I can tell a player could wear pride tape during an ordinary game).

I rather think though that if the league had just left it alone the story would have died down. Hey - nobody is talking about NFL players refusing to come out for the anthem anymore, right?

But, in my opinion, the league made the situation worse by banning the jerseys (and tape), thus ensuring it revived the story, and will revive it again the first time a player wears rainbow tape in defiance of league rules.

From a business perspective the NHL is in a no win situation. If they ban teams from having support the troop nights--the same people who hated Pride night will be up in arm over that ban

Just a reminder - the league will continue to have both pride nights and "support the troops" nights. What's been banned is special jerseys for the players on those nights (plus also special tape).

 

[Jumptheshark]

So keeping on the business topic...

I don't think it was even 5 players - I think it was two (Provorov and Reimer). But to be honest - the media didn't focus on all the players who did wear Pride jerseys, but rather on the two who didn't. The league felt this was a bad look, so banned all themed jerseys in future. Then just a few days ago they banned any coloured tape during special event games (as far as I can tell a player could wear pride tape during an ordinary game).

I rather think though that if the league had just left it alone the story would have died down. Hey - nobody is talking about NFL players refusing to come out for the anthem anymore, right?

But, in my opinion, the league made the situation worse by banning the jerseys (and tape), thus ensuring it revived the story, and will revive it again the first time a player wears rainbow tape in defiance of league rules.



Just a reminder - the league will continue to have both pride nights and "support the troops" nights. What's been banned is special jerseys for the players on those nights (plus also special tape).

are u sure about that? My understanding Pride night(for those team having them) will not have stuff in the arena but stuff outside the arena--unless the NHL changed their mind

 

[golfortennis1]

here is the thing. I understand why it was done. But there is a catch 22. They ban this but allow other things that are just as political but is supported by those who do not like the pride thing.

That is where the NHL is falling off the cliff. You have to blanket ban everything on game day. You just can not pick and choose what you do.

This confuses me


it is a politics topic. There is no way to hide it. Several NHL teams will be having support the troop nights and for many that is a problematic as pride night(mostly because politicians show up).

From a business perspective the NHL is in a no win situation. If they ban teams from having support the troop nights--the same people who hated Pride night will be up in arm over that ban

I don't know if it is the same with the NHL, but wasn't the DOD or someone caught paying the NFL for the military themed weekends? I believe I recall the phrase "paid patriotism" being thrown around at the time. In which case, it becomes a business topic. Frankly I wish the leagues would either tell groups "pay for your theme night", or say "we are a hockey league, what happens outside is not our concern." Of course that won't happen....

 

[golfortennis1]

Understood about the last sentence, but let me try to explain.

Fundamentally banning pride tape, or banning special warm-up decisions, is a business decision by the league. That is - does banning pride tape (or conversely not banning it) lead to better or worse publicity, and thus is it better or worse for the league's bottom line.

I'll admit a bunch of posters have gone above and beyond that argument, and I rather wish they wouldn't.

I think what the debate has come down to is how much people believe making a call one way or another will impact the revenue streams. Some are saying that without a theme night, certain groups will think their money is unwanted and thus will kill the NHLs growth. Others are saying the more you focus on these groups, you risk losing a lot more from your existing customer base in the hopes of attracting this new revenue. And any business will tell you it'sa lot harder to gain a new customer than it is to keep an existing one.

The political points are being brought out to support either view point. At least, IMHO.

 

[Albatros]

What the hell is going on when a company's policies can apparently be classified as "Say Gay" and "Don't Say Gay".

Given it was a very small number of players (five?) out of 800 that, within their rights, made an individual choice to not participate fully (they did play in the game) would seem to give a clear indication that the league is "inclusive" would it not?

When the work "still needs to be done", it will be never be done.

Time to move on.

If someone doesn't want to participate in a particular team event despite having signed a contract pledging to do so then that's up to them to deal with in a reasonable way, not at all a reason for a general rainbow stick tape ban.

Let Reimer, Staal, Provorov & co. do what they think they can get away with and let others show solidarity to the LGBT community including LGBT hockey players how they want to.

 

[rsteen]

Brian Burke was on Allan Walsh's podcast and he said he didn't agree with the decision on the special jerseys, but he understands why the league did it. He basically implied the further ban on the tape was stupid.

The furor over the jerseys had died down, and then the league decided to open it up again? What was wrong with a memo saying use of tape and other participation in specialty nights is optional for the players?

 

[Yukon Joe]

are u sure about that? My understanding Pride night(for those team having them) will not have stuff in the arena but stuff outside the arena--unless the NHL changed their mind

I'm pretty sure. Remember it's not just pride night that's effected - it's any special themed night, like Hockey FIghts Cancer, or military night, or Insert Group Here night.

The event can still go on. The team can still have a special announcement and ceremony and do whatever else they want. It's just that players won't wear special jerseys (or special stick tape) inside the arena.

The "outside the arena" bit is players are free to wear pride merchandise, or whatever - outside of the arena.

 

[MMC]

Brian Burke was on Allan Walsh's podcast and he said he didn't agree with the decision on the special jerseys, but he understands why the league did it. He basically implied the further ban on the tape was stupid.

The furor over the jerseys had died down, and then the league decided to open it up again? What was wrong with a memo saying use of tape and other participation in specialty nights is optional for the players?

I’m confused as to why anyone is shocked that it WOULDN’T include the tape. When the ban on jerseys was announced, Bettman said it was all about not making the players have to participate on ice. Stick tape clearly falls into that

 

[Yukon Joe]

I don't know if it is the same with the NHL, but wasn't the DOD or someone caught paying the NFL for the military themed weekends? I believe I recall the phrase "paid patriotism" being thrown around at the time. In which case, it becomes a business topic. Frankly I wish the leagues would either tell groups "pay for your theme night", or say "we are a hockey league, what happens outside is not our concern." Of course that won't happen....

US DOD did pay for military appreciation nights. This is true.

But I'm looking at the Jets special event schedule. Put side the military night (and usually the highlight of that night is the Jets paying military charities money, which was part of the deal in the RCAF allowing the Jets the rights to use their military-themed logo), none of them are on behalf of a specific group.

They're still having pride night, but there's south asian heritage night, WASAC night (FIrst Nations), Black History, Hockey Talks (mental health), women in sport night...

These are not done to benefit some outside group - they're all done to try and help grow the game to new audiences.

I’m confused as to why anyone is shocked that it WOULDN’T include the tape. When the ban on jerseys was announced, Bettman said it was all about not making the players have to participate on ice. Stick tape clearly falls into that

But this is forcing players NOT to participate - it takes away the option of using the damn tape.

 

[MMC]

US DOD did pay for military appreciation nights. This is true.

But I'm looking at the Jets special event schedule. Put side the military night (and usually the highlight of that night is the Jets paying military charities money, which was part of the deal in the RCAF allowing the Jets the rights to use their military-themed logo), none of them are on behalf of a specific group.

They're still having pride night, but there's south asian heritage night, WASAC night (FIrst Nations), Black History, Hockey Talks (mental health), women in sport night...

These are not done to benefit some outside group - they're all done to try and help grow the game to new audiences.



But this is forcing players NOT to participate - it takes away the option of using the damn tape.

Ok, I’m just saying there was no “further ban on tape”. There was one ban on all specialty on ice equipment

 

[TheLegend]

I’m confused as to why anyone is shocked that it WOULDN’T include the tape. When the ban on jerseys was announced, Bettman said it was all about not making the players have to participate on ice. Stick tape clearly falls into that

Unless it was optional.

 

[daver]

If someone doesn't want to participate in a particular team event despite having signed a contract pledging to do so then that's up to them to deal with in a reasonable way, not at all a reason for a general rainbow stick tape ban.

Let Reimer, Staal, Provorov & co. do what they think they can get away with and let others show solidarity to the LGBT community including LGBT hockey players how they want to.

Too bad you think the world is this black and white. It isn't.

Blame the media for making a big deal about who didn't wear a jersey which more than likely is part of the reason the rainbow thing is pushed by advocates as it brings the predictable media and social media attention on "bigots".

 

[Albatros]

Too bad you think the world is this black and white. It isn't.

Blame the media for making a big deal about who didn't wear a jersey which more than likely is part of the reason the rainbow thing is pushed by advocates as it brings the predictable media and social media attention on "bigots".

It's not about the players or the media as much as it's about some owners. They also knew full well how some other players and the media would react to a ban and went with it anyway.

 

[dj4aces]

They picked a political side to allow this in the first place.

I highly doubt that fans are going to leave the sport because the NHL choose to focus their operations on hockey, not on something that has nothing to do with their sport.

That doesn't pass the smell test.

They hadn't chosen a side until they banned it. Had they imposed a rule saying all players must wear them for warmups, that's also taking a political stance. Remaining apolitical is leaving it up to the teams, which was the case until now. I must point out again how the overwhelming majority of players had no problem participating in pride day.

No, fans won't leave the sport, not really. But that doesn't mean they won't be disappointed at a lack of participation. They enjoy it because it celebrates them and/or their friends/family who are military, cancer survivors/victims, or in this case, LGBT+. The fans I know felt seen, acknowledged, and celebrated by the sport they enjoy.

As always, your mileage may vary. That's just the people I know.

Funny enough it wasn't even a problem when pride sweaters became a thing.

Indeed true. I stand corrected.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Folks, convince me that this is currently a "business" topic and not a "politics" topic.

No need (or desire on my part) for you to directly convince me. Convince me by the way that you continue to have the discussion.

Thanks.

Thanks, all.