Burning River Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Here's an interesting tid-bit: Adam Schefter reported on NFL Network that the NFL's competition committee is considering a rule that would bar a player from wearing his hair long enough on the field to obscure his name on the back of his jersey. Players like Polamalu and Jaguars cornerback Rashaen Mathis would either need to get a haircut or figure out a way to stuff all that hair in their helmets throughout a game. There is some reports that an NFL source said it is unsafe. My take: I feel that it is an "image" thing the NFL is trying to protect. I guess it's another way for the NFL to keep people from standing out as individuals. If the player wants to have long hair. He is the one at risk getting yanked down by it. He could answer to the coaches. The problem is that the NFL states that it IS INDEED part of the uniform. So... umm I guess the "NFL Uniform Police" need to decide if it's fair that some players have hair to grab on to while others do not? From a competitive stand point, I would not be happy if a guy was prevented from scoring because someone was able to grab his hair to prevent it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 It's a two-parter... yes, it could be an image thing, but there's a legitimate safety concern - a player with hair long enough to be tackled by it (as I've seen with Polamalu more than once) is a player that could be injured by such action. Imagine Mathis having his hair pulled to an extent that it causes scalp damage that prevents him from wearing a helmet for a month - are your locks really worth risking being placed on IR, or released should you get injured because someone tugged your hair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udubs03 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 There goes the Packers' secondary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heernumurr Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 When I played rugby at school and had long hair I was always told that it was at my own risk. If someone tackled me by it, well that was my problem. Maybe the same should apply here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigga Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 The Warden will not allow the inmates to run the asylum. I don't really see that big of a problem with this. The Yankees don't allow their players to have long hair or facial hair. Corporations have dress codes, and standards on hair. We've been dealing with it for years, NFL players can, too. On January 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM, NJTank said: Btw this is old hat for Notre Dame. Knits Rockne made up George Tip's death bed speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-kj Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Imagine Mathis having his hair pulled to an extent that it causes scalp damage that prevents him from wearing a helmet for a monthUm... Or, in a more realistic sense, it causing a neck injury, much like pulling the face mask. Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop! KJ Branded | Behance portfolio POTD 2013-08-22 On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said: When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 The problem is that the NFL states that it IS INDEED part of the uniform. So... umm I guess the "NFL Uniform Police" need to decide if it's fair that some players have hair to grab on to while others do not?The NFL specifically states that hair is part of the uniform?The proposed rule that I heard mentioned made it quite simple - a player's hair could come down to the top of his nameplate. Anything longer than that is too long. Seems simple enough to me.I think this is entirely within the scope of the NFL's jurisdiction.Players are required under the uniform code to wear nameplates. If a player does anything to obscure or render illegible that nameplate, from removing it altogether to altering it with colored tape to covering it with long hair, he ought to be considered in violation of that uniform code, and therefore ought be precluded from taking the field.I guess I don't see where this is a "problem". The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuvTheNats Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 The NHL implemented this rule a while back...I belive for Jagr....but Chris Simon also attempted to take advantage of it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFoA Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 The problem is that the NFL states that it IS INDEED part of the uniform. So... umm I guess the "NFL Uniform Police" need to decide if it's fair that some players have hair to grab on to while others do not?The NFL specifically states that hair is part of the uniform?Yup. I know the referees explained this when they were reviewing a play in which Polamalu got pulled down by his hair while returning an INT. Since it was part of the uniform, they called a horse collar on whoever did it. So according to the NFL, long hair is considered apart of the uniform.That being said, if it cuts down on hair pulling then I'm all for this rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 The only reason this makes sense is for safety because of tackling by the hair, but Im not a fan of any league telling its players how to cut their hair. www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yac12 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Could a team put the nameplate below the number? The NBA Kings had it this way at one point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telemundo219 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 The Warden will not allow the inmates to run the asylum. I don't really see that big of a problem with this. The Yankees don't allow their players to have long hair or facial hair. Corporations have dress codes, and standards on hair. We've been dealing with it for years, NFL players can, too.That's the problem with all these sports leagues (including WWE even though it's not real sports). Nowadays, it's not about sports or the fans, it's all about making money and power and control. I think this has nearly nothing to do with safety (even though that should be an issue) and if was truly about safety,some smart executive would thought of this idea awhile ago. Corporates just think about themselves and what they want over those they cater to. A rule like this doesn't allow individuality and puts all players in the position of being robots. I do think for some things there must be some order within any group, but who is the NFL, NBA, and others catering to? With all these unnecessary rules, that were put in to place when no real threats or reasoning, there can't be a real genuine, good reason for what's going on in sports today. College sports as we know them are just about dead. The lid is off on all the corruption that taints just about every major program and every decision that the schools or the NCAA make is only about money, money, and more money. We'll have three 16+ team super-conferences sooner rather than later, killing much of the regional flair and traditional rivalries that make college sports unique and showing the door to any school that doesn't bring money to the table in the process. Pretty soon the smaller schools are going to have to consider forming their own sanctioning body to keep the true spirit of college sports alive because the NCAA will only get worse in it's excess from here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 When I played rugby at school and had long hair I was always told that it was at my own risk. If someone tackled me by it, well that was my problem. Maybe the same should apply here?That's ridiculous. These are multi-million dollar athletes - their teams have insane amounts of money invested in them. If the hair was deemed a risk that required an official "recommendation" against it, and therefore the owners would have a legitimate reason for instructing their players not to wear long hair, they'd do it in a second.As long as it isn't considered threatening enough to require a rule (or even an official "at your own risk" warning) then the owners really don't have much say about it. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LEWJ Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 I have mixed feelings on this issue.I have always felt that it was a signature thing for some players to have long hair (see T. Polamalu, E. Reed, A. Harris, etc.)And I've also felt that it is, in fact, at their own risk. If they get injured, it's there problem.But I also believe the NFL has a right to mandate hair length, just as much as The Bulls have the right to tell players they may or may not wear headbands. I kinda think it should be up to the teams though, and not the league. | BROWNS | BUCKEYES | CAVALIERS | INDIANS | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AHcreative Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Could a team put the nameplate below the number? The NBA Kings had it this way at one point.Doubt it. The NFL seems to have higher standards than the NBA seeing whereas the NBA just a few years ago required their players to wear suits to meetings and during interviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 The only reason this makes sense is for safety because of tackling by the hair, but Im not a fan of any league telling its players how to cut their hair.I disagree on Tank's first point and agree on the second. This is all about image. If it were truly about safety it would have been addressed long before now. Ricky Williams had dreads back when he came into the league. Al Harris' hair was very long in 2003 when he made a fool out of Matt Hasselbeck in the playoff game. Troy Polamalu, T.J Houz...etc, and many others who have had long hair for quite a while now. I think law and order guy Roger Goodell doesn't like anything that is even remotely non-conformist. He's using safety as an excuse to go "David Stern dress code" on these guys. If these guys are willing to play NFL football, get the kicked out of them every week, and possibly end up carrying the scars of their careers for the rest of their lives then they should be allowed to wear their hair however they want. Dress codes, hair length regulations, etc. are bull- at any level. Most people are smart enough to dress appropriately for the occasion. Those who aren't are probably too stupid to ever get in a position where they would need to worry about it in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElwoodCuse Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 If these guys are willing to play NFL football, get the kicked out of them every week, and possibly end up carrying the scars of their careers for the rest of their lives then they should be allowed to wear their hair however they want.If they want to cash an NFL paycheck they have to follow NFL rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB61 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 They changed the rule to allow the pulling of hair a few years back, I remember that. That's my thing -- if you're going to wear your hair long, it's considered a part of your body and you can be taken down by it.That said, I've always been a fan of the whole "sticking it to" athletes by enforcing these rules and dress codes -- save for the uniformity of socks and the tucking in of jerseys -- that's just stupid.I think it's just Goody throwin' his weight around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 This is all about image. If it were truly about safety it would have been addressed long before now.Nonsense.That's like saying the horse-collar tackle rule isn't about safety, or it would have been implemented long before 2005.Every year, it seems like there are more and more players with long hair covering their nameplates. So why should it surprise us that the League has decided to make a rule about it? The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 This is all about image. If it were truly about safety it would have been addressed long before now.Nonsense.That's like saying the horse-collar tackle rule isn't about safety, or it would have been implemented long before 2005.Every year, it seems like there are more and more players with long hair covering their nameplates. So why should it surprise us that the League has decided to make a rule about it?No one noticed the safety issues with long hair under Tagliabue. For that matter, long hair has been around since the 70's. Now all of a sudden Roger Goodell, who has shown a very no nonsense approach up to this point, rides in on his white horse to save players from themselves. Yeah right, and David Stern's dress code wasn't aimed directly at anyone who dressed like Allen Iverson. It may not be all about image but it's still mostly about image. One question, since the 70's how many "hair-related" injuries have been reported in the NFL? Believe what you want but Goodell saw Stern pull it off in the NBA and now he wants to do the same thing in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.