Comments on: OWNERS TO TAKE UP HAIR ISSUE http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/ The Best Pro Football Scoop on the Internet Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:31:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: bboozehound http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-10113 bboozehound Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:25:05 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-10113 I know this a football site but do people not remember when great Yankee captain Don Mattingly being forced to trim his mullet by George Steinbrenner? Or, two years ago when Johnny Damon had to shave his beard and get a hair cut to join the Yanks? What's so bad about the NFL saying it wants clean cut player images? Normal people have to conform to these sorts of standards in the workplace. Why is the NFL not allowed to apply these same sorts of standards? I know this a football site but do people not remember when great Yankee captain Don Mattingly being forced to trim his mullet by George Steinbrenner? Or, two years ago when Johnny Damon had to shave his beard and get a hair cut to join the Yanks? What’s so bad about the NFL saying it wants clean cut player images? Normal people have to conform to these sorts of standards in the workplace. Why is the NFL not allowed to apply these same sorts of standards?

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: east96st http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-10055 east96st Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:03:31 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-10055 Is it just me or do the Chiefs have bigger issues to worry about? Maybe they should be focusing on getting to at least .500. Is it just me or do the Chiefs have bigger issues to worry about? Maybe they should be focusing on getting to at least .500.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: gobrowns http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-10050 gobrowns Fri, 28 Mar 2008 04:13:30 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-10050 Kotite: I believe the play gobrowns was referring too was a reviewed challenge on Rashean Mathis after he intercepted a pass near the sidelines... I believe that's the one, thanks. I want to add I typed 1997, when I meant 2007. I'm not aging very gracefully :) Kotite: I believe the play gobrowns was referring too was a reviewed challenge on Rashean Mathis after he intercepted a pass near the sidelines…

I believe that’s the one, thanks. I want to add I typed 1997, when I meant 2007. I’m not aging very gracefully :)

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: mswens23 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9911 mswens23 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:57:37 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9911 oh my god, football is slow this time of year. all we have to talk about is players hair being too long...pacman needs to smack a stripper around or something oh my god, football is slow this time of year. all we have to talk about is players hair being too long…pacman needs to smack a stripper around or something

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: Eustus http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9878 Eustus Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:09:41 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9878 The Chiefs ownership has always been very, very tight with the league front-office. Having been involved in a few labour negotiations, I think he's onto something when he says it's a ploy by the leauge to drum up a concession. It's the kind of demand you make that you never intend to actually obtain - you just hope to sacrifice it in exchange for something back. Whether Manhatten is behind it or not, I'm sure the Chiefs are not acting independently - it just so happens that they're the team that put the issue on the agenda. What is important is, the issue had to be put on the agenda by a team and not the commissioner (frankly, I don't even know if the commissioner can have a rule change added to the agenda of that meeting - there's a question for the crack PFT staff: how is the agenda set for owners meetings?). The Chiefs ownership has always been very, very tight with the league front-office. Having been involved in a few labour negotiations, I think he’s onto something when he says it’s a ploy by the leauge to drum up a concession. It’s the kind of demand you make that you never intend to actually obtain - you just hope to sacrifice it in exchange for something back.

Whether Manhatten is behind it or not, I’m sure the Chiefs are not acting independently - it just so happens that they’re the team that put the issue on the agenda. What is important is, the issue had to be put on the agenda by a team and not the commissioner (frankly, I don’t even know if the commissioner can have a rule change added to the agenda of that meeting - there’s a question for the crack PFT staff: how is the agenda set for owners meetings?).

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: ravensfan http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9862 ravensfan Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:19:15 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9862 Stop sticking up for your Squeeler boyz. As a lawyer I would think you would speculate the owners would make a rule saying something like "Player's name patches shall not be obstructed at any point during the game, while on the field of play." So no, your boy with the girl hair wouldn't be fined for hair lengh, but rather covering up his name. Stop sticking up for your Squeeler boyz. As a lawyer I would think you would speculate the owners would make a rule saying something like “Player’s name patches shall not be obstructed at any point during the game, while on the field of play.” So no, your boy with the girl hair wouldn’t be fined for hair lengh, but rather covering up his name.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: AllSeeingEye http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9859 AllSeeingEye Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:39:43 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9859 "Wouldn't Polamalu be being disciplined for hair length?" Uh, no. He would be disciplined for refusing to tuck his hair under his helmet. I would think a lawyer would be able to figure that out. I do agree, to a point, that it seems silly to create a potential fracus over such a small issue. But I will say this. One of the (many) reasons I like professional football over college is that the players look like, well, professionals on the field. College football players often look like a bunch of guys halfway put on last years unwashed uniforms for a last-minute intramural game. I may be in the minority, but I for one appreciate the NFL's uniform rules and this just seems like an extension of the, otherwise, pretty strict on-field uniform rules. “Wouldn’t Polamalu be being disciplined for hair length?”

Uh, no. He would be disciplined for refusing to tuck his hair under his helmet. I would think a lawyer would be able to figure that out.

I do agree, to a point, that it seems silly to create a potential fracus over such a small issue. But I will say this. One of the (many) reasons I like professional football over college is that the players look like, well, professionals on the field. College football players often look like a bunch of guys halfway put on last years unwashed uniforms for a last-minute intramural game. I may be in the minority, but I for one appreciate the NFL’s uniform rules and this just seems like an extension of the, otherwise, pretty strict on-field uniform rules.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: Kotite http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9852 Kotite Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:21:47 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9852 I believe the play gobrowns was referring too was a reviewed challenge on Rashean Mathis after he intercepted a pass near the sidelines. I think it was vs. Pittsburgh. KC should worry about more important things, like finding an O-line or a QB NOT named Brody Croyle than whether or not Polamalu or Stephen Jackson are wearing their hair too long. This goes back to the rule of keeping your helmet on while on the field. The NFL wants the players to be as "anonymous" as possible. The hair makes it easier to pick out a player by his looks rather than his number. I believe the play gobrowns was referring too was a reviewed challenge on Rashean Mathis after he intercepted a pass near the sidelines. I think it was vs. Pittsburgh. KC should worry about more important things, like finding an O-line or a QB NOT named Brody Croyle than whether or not Polamalu or Stephen Jackson are wearing their hair too long. This goes back to the rule of keeping your helmet on while on the field. The NFL wants the players to be as “anonymous” as possible. The hair makes it easier to pick out a player by his looks rather than his number.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: Honey Nut Florios http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9838 Honey Nut Florios Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:28:34 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9838 the last thing i want to see is an NFL game stopped, or a player substituted or fined, because his "hair became untucked". we can officially call it "The Untuck Rule". the last thing i want to see is an NFL game stopped, or a player substituted or fined, because his “hair became untucked”. we can officially call it “The Untuck Rule”.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: Skew http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9825 Skew Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:13:23 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9825 What is going to surprise everyone is that this will probabily be approved, and then Pacman will be allowed back into the NFL. Get your sh!t together, NFL. Are you really trying to turn away fans? What is going to surprise everyone is that this will probabily be approved, and then Pacman will be allowed back into the NFL.

Get your sh!t together, NFL.

Are you really trying to turn away fans?

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: mightymushrat http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9819 mightymushrat Thu, 27 Mar 2008 03:12:21 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9819 Players get fined $15,000 if their socks aren't pulled up during a game or if their jersey is untucked. I think it is consistent and reasonable for the league to want the player's name on the back of his jersey to be visible. I have a solution for the problem anyway. The players could have pigtails sticking out their earholes. Players get fined $15,000 if their socks aren’t pulled up during a game or if their jersey is untucked. I think it is consistent and reasonable for the league to want the player’s name on the back of his jersey to be visible.

I have a solution for the problem anyway. The players could have pigtails sticking out their earholes.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: gobrowns http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9817 gobrowns Thu, 27 Mar 2008 03:00:13 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9817 I can't remember the game, but there was a play this (1997) year where a player was ruled out of bounds because his hair, and ONLY his hair was touching the sideline. I saw the play, but can't remember the teams playing to save my life. Anyone else remember this? At the time, I immediately thought that this issue has to be addressed soon. If hair is to be thought of as a body part just like an elbow or knee, if I'm a ball carrier, I'm cutting it short, or tying it up. I can’t remember the game, but there was a play this (1997) year where a player was ruled out of bounds because his hair, and ONLY his hair was touching the sideline. I saw the play, but can’t remember the teams playing to save my life. Anyone else remember this? At the time, I immediately thought that this issue has to be addressed soon. If hair is to be thought of as a body part just like an elbow or knee, if I’m a ball carrier, I’m cutting it short, or tying it up.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: go screw http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9799 go screw Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:01:54 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9799 I think all this points to a very bad sign for the N.F.L. The old commis might have been to close to upshaw. But things like this can be good. I think all this points to a very bad sign for the N.F.L. The old commis might have been to close to upshaw. But things like this can be good.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: mborz http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9794 mborz Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:51:43 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9794 Odd that the Chiefs are the ones proposing it given the only thing that kept Troy Polamalu from scoring a touchdown on an interception return in their 2006 meeting was Larry Johnson dragging him down by his hair. Odd that the Chiefs are the ones proposing it given the only thing that kept Troy Polamalu from scoring a touchdown on an interception return in their 2006 meeting was Larry Johnson dragging him down by his hair.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: ButchD http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9783 ButchD Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:35:22 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/owners-to-take-up-hair-issue/#comment-9783 This seems dumb. I think the league is just trying to brew something up to then 'give back' as concessions to get something else later. Really this is lame. As far as the team penalizing someone for it, it violates the CBA. Maybe they plan to make it a 5 yard delay of game penalty - not allowing the ball to be placed in play if someone is on the field with their hair hanging out... again, lame... This seems dumb. I think the league is just trying to brew something up to then ‘give back’ as concessions to get something else later. Really this is lame.

As far as the team penalizing someone for it, it violates the CBA. Maybe they plan to make it a 5 yard delay of game penalty - not allowing the ball to be placed in play if someone is on the field with their hair hanging out…

again, lame…

(report as inappropriate)

]]>