Busted for wearing illegal shoe brand

[Viper]

An interesting incident last weekend in the NLL:

It turned out that [Toronto Rock forward Colin] Doyle had been kicked off the floor for wearing unlicensed equipment ? specifically, his shoes. All players are mandated by the NLL to wear Reebok shoes as part of the league?s head-to-toe sponsorship deal. The [Calgary] Roughnecks noticed that Doyle wasn?t, and called him on it at a most inopportune time.

<snip>

Still, the question remains: how did the Roughnecks know? [...] The answer, it turns out, is pretty simple: while Doyle may have covered up all the markings on the top of the shoes, he couldn?t do anything about the soles.

[aci]

That's harsh. When it comes to shoes, I have a hard time agreeing with any justifications for only allowing one brand. I've tried on shoes from certain companies, multiple styles, different sizes, etc, and sometimes the fit of the shoes just doesn't work for my foot. I personally haven't had any problems wearing Reeboks, but the fact of the matter is that if that player was wearing them and they were causing him foot pain, he needs to be allowed to wear non-Reebok shoes.

Granted, he should have asked league permission, but if they refused him, I would imagine that a trip to the union or labour board (I'm not sure if NLL has a union) should clear it up. No athlete (or any worker, really) should have to wear a piece of equipment that causes him pain because it has a sponsor's logo on it.

[TopCat]

He couldn't just take a Sharpie to the soles?

[Puck]

An interesting incident last weekend in the NLL:

It turned out that [Toronto Rock forward Colin] Doyle had been kicked off the floor for wearing unlicensed equipment ? specifically, his shoes. All players are mandated by the NLL to wear Reebok shoes as part of the league?s head-to-toe sponsorship deal. The [Calgary] Roughnecks noticed that Doyle wasn?t, and called him on it at a most inopportune time.

<snip>

Still, the question remains: how did the Roughnecks know? [...] The answer, it turns out, is pretty simple: while Doyle may have covered up all the markings on the top of the shoes, he couldn?t do anything about the soles.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that this now surpasses the Marty McSorley illegal curve as the dumbest penalty of all time.

Yeah, I took a stand.

[Luigi]

this is total bs. If players aren't allowed to choose what brand of shoes (which are a preety important and specific thing) they wear what's next? They have to use a particular brand of lacrosse stick? ridiculous.

[Alphabet Man]

It's bureaucracy gone mad!

[EMauritius]

[spam]

[Alphabet Man]

Can you please spam us with porn next time?

[vman]

Hmmm. I was at the game and didn't notice the delay, which from what I gather was during O.T., then again, my buddy won the 50/50 draw, so we were more excited about that than the game at the time. Personally I think when it comes to things like shoes, players should be able to wear what they feel safe and comfortable in, since it directly affects how well they play the game. Most, if not all NLL players have day jobs, so an injury means and costs a lot more to them than most pro athletes. Who pays attention to shoes anyway? I certainly didn't notice the UA logo on Doyle. I can't say the same for the Reebok branding everywhere else.

[BlueSky]

this is total bs. If players aren't allowed to choose what brand of shoes (which are a preety important and specific thing) they wear what's next? They have to use a particular brand of lacrosse stick? ridiculous.

It's bureaucracy gone mad!

Yes, it's total BS. This - exclusive licensing deals - is also why there is no NFL 2KXX (EA Sports' Madden is the only one allowed) and you can only watch out-of-market NFL games on DirecTV. It's maddening and the worst thing that companies can do to customers (and players in this instance).

[BBTV]

Didn't it used to be the case in either the NFL or NBA that players had to either wear shoes by the sponsor, or at least wear the sponsor's logo on their shoes (after covering up the actual manufacturer)? I don't have a problem with Reebok essentially purchasing ad space on everyone's feet (I don't like ads on any part of the uniform - even the jersey sleeves, but that's just a fact of life now) but I agree that they should either offer to custom make shoes for any player who can't wear a standard-issue model or allow the players to doctor up their own shoes to either hide logos or put the RBK logo on it. Kind of like the helmet deal in the NFL - players can wear any one they want, but only the Riddell ones can have the logo.

[kmccarthy27]

Didn't it used to be the case in either the NFL or NBA that players had to either wear shoes by the sponsor, or at least wear the sponsor's logo on their shoes (after covering up the actual manufacturer)? I don't have a problem with Reebok essentially purchasing ad space on everyone's feet (I don't like ads on any part of the uniform - even the jersey sleeves, but that's just a fact of life now) but I agree that they should either offer to custom make shoes for any player who can't wear a standard-issue model or allow the players to doctor up their own shoes to either hide logos or put the RBK logo on it. Kind of like the helmet deal in the NFL - players can wear any one they want, but only the Riddell ones can have the logo.

I think this was the NBA which is why a lot of players had the black tape over the Champion logo on the jersey.

[MJWalker45]

NFL states that if it's not Reebok, Nike or Under Armour the logos have to be covered over. It used to just be Reebok because of the 10 year deal until the players raised a stink because of selective policing of the teams.

[jkucera]

I know we're talking pro here but i know from first hand experience you have no choice of brand in college. if your school is Nike you are required to wear Nike's. Had a buddy of mine that went out to pre-game in a non-sanctioned shoes and the equipment manager told him ether you change them or you cant play. the coach had no say in the matter the word came from the AD...needless to say the shoes were switched out.

[BBTV]

Didn't it used to be the case in either the NFL or NBA that players had to either wear shoes by the sponsor, or at least wear the sponsor's logo on their shoes (after covering up the actual manufacturer)? I don't have a problem with Reebok essentially purchasing ad space on everyone's feet (I don't like ads on any part of the uniform - even the jersey sleeves, but that's just a fact of life now) but I agree that they should either offer to custom make shoes for any player who can't wear a standard-issue model or allow the players to doctor up their own shoes to either hide logos or put the RBK logo on it. Kind of like the helmet deal in the NFL - players can wear any one they want, but only the Riddell ones can have the logo.

I think this was the NBA which is why a lot of players had the black tape over the Champion logo on the jersey.

There was never a Champion logo on the jersey.

[Viper]

He couldn't just take a Sharpie to the soles?

In all likelihood that wouldn't work. It would be like trying to paint your walls with watercolor - you can't get a thick enough coat to mask the logo. Doyle probably would have had to spraypaint the soles black to cover it up.

[dfwabel]

Didn't it used to be the case in either the NFL or NBA that players had to either wear shoes by the sponsor, or at least wear the sponsor's logo on their shoes (after covering up the actual manufacturer)? I don't have a problem with Reebok essentially purchasing ad space on everyone's feet (I don't like ads on any part of the uniform - even the jersey sleeves, but that's just a fact of life now) but I agree that they should either offer to custom make shoes for any player who can't wear a standard-issue model or allow the players to doctor up their own shoes to either hide logos or put the RBK logo on it. Kind of like the helmet deal in the NFL - players can wear any one they want, but only the Riddell ones can have the logo.

I think this was the NBA which is why a lot of players had the black tape over the Champion logo on the jersey.

When was the Champion "Red/White/Blue C" ever on a official NBA game jersey? I just recall them on replicas. I don't think I've seen one on a Double Tag.

The officials were correct for ejecting the offending player.

[Viper]

Bumping this thread, as there was another, similar incident this weekend, again in the NLL:

Despite another strong performance, [buffalo Bandits goaltender] Angus Goodleaf came away with a loss, and is 0-3 on the year. He was forced out of the game for a brief time because the Stealth bench noticed he wasn?t wearing the league required Reebok shoes.

[omnivore]

I think its dumb for colleges with supposed amateur rules and in the pros awash with cash. But for a league with little sponsorship opportunities, I can see where you'd crack down on this even if it's dumb. Not that the NLL is bush league like some indoor football league, but it's not exactly big time. I can see the need for the league HQ to try to preserve the relationship, eapecially in down economic times.

Still, I hate rules likes these.

[mfoster]

Roller Hockey International used to have an equipment rule when it was going back in the 90's. Usually teams just taped over the offending brand on the stick, but it was occasionally forgotten and a minor penalty would be called.