News & Media II: Articles, photos, videos, etc.

That's a valid point. Heaven forbid Ellis invests in Hinkle for the fourth star run, then watches helpless as Nike reveals a rainbow kit for the World Cup to make up for the black and white one last time.

I was wrong when I thought Press had been permanently blacklisted, but it sounds like even Hinkle herself has abandoned her USWNT aspirations.

 

From Hinkle's quotes in the 5/30/2018 Oregonian article, it seems that she turned down her international call up about 3 days after USSF announced its LGBT-shirts-for-charity plan (May 25 call up >>> May 26 charity event announced >> May 28 Hinkle's birthday >> May 29 "decision made").
Apparently, her words come from a religious talk show, where she clarified that incident.

USSF briefly announced her absence from travel on June 6, one day after the US squad arrived in Europe.

21 players were originally called on May 25, with plans to suit up 18 players per match. 19 ended up traveling: 2 dropped after club injuries (A.Morgan, M.Brian), 1 replacement added (L.Williams for A.Morgan), 1 refusal citing personal reasons (J.Hinkle).

A complex decision to make, since an international call up can benefit a professional career. Even tougher, considering her last call up had been in 2015.

Most likely, USSF delayed its brief announcement of Hinkle's refusal until the USWNT were out of reach from US press.

Both MLS and its Players' Union are partners of the You Can Play Project, since June 2013. USSF is not listed as partner of that anti-discrimination organization, but both worked together on June 2017 to raise charity funds with LGBT-themed NT kits.

Too bad Hinkle is still haunted for a stance taken in 2017. There must be a better way to bring people together.

 

Homework.

 

Lavelle has been added to the roster:

https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2018/06/03/18/48/20180603-news-wntvchn-lavelle-joins-camp

 

It was not just a team kit, but an especially issued one that advocates a value in contradiction with one's religious beliefs. I am sure you and many others understand the difference for an individual to be able to tolerate something compared to being required to advocate for it.

Hinkle is apparently liked and respected by her Courage team mates even though I believe she did not wear their Rainbow "EQUALITY" warm up shirts last year during pride month.

One might argue that the USWNT kit (including warmups, etc) is not the place for political messages or social causes in the first place. USSF should not put a player in the position that Hinkle was, for whatever political or social message.

 

It is a difficult situation indeed.

Those shirts were supposed to be auctioned afterwards, to raise money for the LGBT support group that had partnered with USSF.
Hinkle might have thought that she was raising money for the LGBT charity, so she decided to refuse the call up on religious grounds.

The other side of the coin: football federations use their players for social campaigns: end to racism, end to homophobia, end to domestic violence.

As a federation, what can you do if a player refuses to stand behind a social campaign banner, citing personal reasons?

Should the player enjoy the benefits of training with a NT, while disregarding responsibilities which come with the territory?

It is a bit a weird. Social campaigns encourage changing minds for the better.

But, excluding an athlete does not help change her mind. It would make her resentful, and more entrenched in her original mindset.

 

It makes for an interesting issue when you consider Jozy Altidore is a Jehovah's Witness. His faith prohibits him from saluting the flag or singing the national anthem. I assume it wouldn't be unusual for a Witness to not join the team until after the anthem. And some probably consider it problematic for him to even be on a "national team."

 

There is not an equivalence. A team kit is a necessary part of playing a game. While one can argue about whether there should be pride uniforms, one can't argue that a player can play on a team while refusing to wear the team kit. It just wouldn't work and also, I believe, is contrary to the rules of soccer about kits. On the other hand, there is nothing about saluting a flag or singing a national anthem that is a necessary part of playing a game.

As a matter of interest, Quakers also do not salute the flag and they don't say the pledge of allegiance. There are some jobs that a Quaker or Jehovah's Witness could not hold because of this, as saluting the flag, at least, is a necessary part of the job. (I'm thinking of some jobs at Arlington National Cemetery.) There's a price to pay for holding to some religious beliefs.

 

I didn't say they were equivalent. Just an interesting, similar point for discussion. Many fans don't realize Jozy does what he does for religious reasons.

 

For another interesting, similar point of discussion, on the women's side, there was a player in the early 2000s, Aleisha Cramer, who refused further call-ups. As a member of the LDS Church, it went against her religious beliefs to play on Sunday.

Sometimes there are consequences for beliefs/personal convictions. Its just the way it is.

 

Honestly that's ridiculous.
She hasn't shown much of anything in the few minutes she's played for the spirit. Is by all admissions not match fit and she is added? Ellis must believe she's the holy grail for 2019. Totally a slap in the face of the excluded NWSL players

 

I watched the New England Revs the other night and they had "Pride-themed" numbers on their kits. When they came out for the 2nd half, some players were wearing the regular numbered shirts. The announcer made a point to say that some players had simply switched shirts at the half as they might normally (wet, torn or dirty, etc.) and not because of the nature of the numbers (one assumes). Surprised it wasn't a uniform violation.

 

If it wasn't a uniform violation, then it goes to show US Soccer could've smoothed this over for Hinkle by just not requiring her to wear the uniform, but instead one that was the same base color.

The whole situation is sad. Hinkle shouldn't have to be placed in that situation. Clearly if the USWNT decided to play a match with a crucifix on the jersey there'd be an uproar. USWNT should be inclusive. This is not done by forcing everyone to support one particular group. There are ways to support that group that they want to without forcing everyone else in on it.

Finally, I personally feel Hinkle has been unfairly discriminated against. I'm not the only one that feels she's the best left back in the NWSL. Ellis is clearly looking for fullbacks. This to me is the true tragedy of the situation.

 

Don't be ridiculous. Hinkle was not a victim of discrimination. She CHOSE not to participate in the camp--period. One could argue, with validity, that the national team should not get involved in social/cultural issues--but it did, given that there are a fair number of gays on the team and in women's sports generally, and the issue is important to them.The situation did put Hinkle in a tough spot, she had to make a decision, and she did. It was her decision--and no, no team allows a particular player to wear a different uniform. Beyond that, this idea that christians should be free to discriminate against LGBTs under the cover of religion is nonsense. Discrimination is discrimination. Religious crazies can--and often do--hold all sorts of wacky ideas/beliefs; those beliefs should not enable them to discriminate. It's ironic that the U.S. is considered an advanced nation. The christian right proves that it is not.

 

LGBT-themed kits are generally auctioned for charity, afterwards.

The uniform change would allow players to exchange shirts, without worrying of surrendering a gift for charity.

Of course, I do not know if there was charity event after that England Revs game.

 

I brought the Hinkle discussion here, so I would like to say something in regards to absolute punishment.

Both religious and social-advocacy groups rely on peer pressure to remain unchallenged. Many examples of both groups cite absolute social standards, where the non-compliant individual is ostracized.

Hinkle must have thought that she would be ostracized in her inner social circle, if she wore an LGBT-themed uniform for charity. So, she took a decision to be excluded. Cannot force her to do otherwise.

USSF must have thought that it would be targeted in social media, if it allowed Hinkle to go to Europe with her USWNT mates. Thus, it accepted Hinkle's refusal and has not called her since.

When I want another individual to change their mind to my favor, I do not force them to be a poster child for my cause. I respect their individual freedom as long as mine is not challenged.

Hinkle did not violate anyone's civil rights. She decided that day not to back a charity project, regardless of her justification.

Hinkle can always decide to change her mind. Banishment from USWNT call ups is not the way to convince her. It can make her resentful: her livelihood as a female athlete was undermined.

If Hinkle is mistaken today, then I can be mistaken tomorrow. I just hope that others will be kinder to me, when they tell me about my mistake.

 

no easy answers here.

we are observing/participating in the neverending process of new norms being created by religious and cultural influences rubbing shoulders in society.

everyone should play their part - wear the shirt, dont wear the shirt, protest for/against, attend/refuse to go to games, post for/against on bigsoccer, etc., until we settle on some uneasy position. then we move on to the new thing - or stir up the old one again.

thats how society works. and i dont know of any way that we avoid the casualities of true believers on the other side of whichever belief is ascendant at the moment.

I'm not sure I want to change rules about team uniforms for individual players beliefs. and I certainly don't want to change strongly held personal beliefs just to suit the team. but in a pluralistic society these things must often butt heads and play out as each of us say & do our parts.

the best societies navigate these changes without too much disruption/pain/upheaval.

AND OBVIOUSLY, NO SOCIETY REMAINS THE SAME FOREVER (even strongly held religious beliefs have changed).

since I'm the classic see-good-points-on-both-sides guy, I'm hoping for marcello-like performances from hinkle for the courage influencing the nt to make some accomodation for her, and her to make some accomodation for the team - I don't know....

like I said.

no easy answers here.

 

btw, is hinkle on a federation contract?

what are the rules for that situation - a contract player refusing a callup for personal/religious/ideological reasons?

 

Please read @luvdagame 's post. I think it provides an excellent perspective on the situation.
I am of similar mind.

Democracy is messy, and it's hard. It's never easy. --- Robert Kennedy, Jr.

 

Beach established......across the street from Rio Tinto.

Before I looked I expected 73 degrees, no no no my little soccer buddies, every bit of 92 at Kick with some wind.
But temperatures, wind velocities, barometic pressures, H the freakin earths' rotation Does Not Matter..

IT IS MATCH DAY​

The Stars have aligned and they have once again assembled to create Utopia on Earth.
Houston seems like eons ago.
The wait is almost over. 3 hours and 43 minutes to Kick.
One long (or short) year till you know what.
But we are all on a Journey that is Certified and Guaranteed to be Absolutely GLORIOUS

and when you are not using you home computer and you wake up at 5 oclock - - you post to the wrong thread.

​

 

There has been a lot of judging of this young lady, especially in social media from my readings, over her decision not to wear the LGBT themed uniform and jeopardize her chances of ever playing for her country again.

IMO, Hinkle did what she thought was right for her and her conscious. She did not insult anyone, she did not force her religion on anyone, she did not force her belief down anyone's throat, she did not discriminate, she quietly made a decision about her own conscious and belief for herself and to herself.

My feelings about this subject may be different than hers as my life experiences may be different, but who am I to tell or chastise Jaelene Hinkle for her strong religious beliefs.
What if she truly believes that if by wearing the uniform, she wold have jeopardized her chance of going to heaven when the time comes? We don't know that.

Very tough situation to analyze as we try to understand both sides of the "argument" but certainly, at least for me, I am in no position to judge anyone when it comes to their religious or life-style convictions.

 

#USWNT to play Chile on 8/31 and 9/4 in Los Angeles and San Jose respectively

— Dan Lauletta (@TheDanLauletta) June 11, 2018

 

McSkillz's bribery/blackmail pays off.

 

Labor Day Party at the McSkillz Compound!!!!!!!!!!​

 

Off topic, but, as we WoSo fans don't pay much attention to the minor sport of men's soccer, it may be news to some that America's team, Mexico, just defeated Germany. Hopefully, we'll see a growth in interest for the men's game......