_2.gif "Time.com 50 Best Websites 2008")
Apparently, new NFLPA president and Titans center Kevin Mawae’s first order of business will be to keep any of his colleagues who choose to grow their hair long from having to pay a visit to Edward Scissorhands.
“I don’t think there is any rule in the NFL rulebook saying your hair can’t be a certain length,” Mawae said, according to the Tennesseean. “For management council or ownership to say we need all our players to cut their hair or bind it up or whatever, I think they need to understand it goes way beyond just haircuts.
“It goes into a cultural issue with the African-American population in our league and also with the Polynesian population. The hair is a part of their culture. It’s part of the history and the background. To ask a player to cut it off just because a select few don’t like it, I think there is an issue with that.”
Amen, Mr. Mawae.
But there’s a point that everyone seems to be missing, and on which we’ve been harping as much as tampering and/or contact in non-contact offseason workouts.
The Collective Bargaining Agreement plainly states that no player will be disciplined for hair length. Period.
So while the league can pass a rule require hair to be tucked inside their helmets (which doesn’t seem to be the best way to ensure that the helmets will, you know, fit properly), any effort to force a player to do anything about the length of his hair would be a blatant violation of the CBA.
We’ve been told for several years now that the teams, the players, and the media read this site. Based on the fact that no one else is talking about the obvious content of Article VII, Section 2 of the CBA in connection with the proposed hair rule, maybe they don’t.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I can see them making rules to tie long hair back or tuck it in or whatever but not cut it….Basically as a longhair if guys that look like me are not allowed to play the game…. well we should not support the NFL
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
March 28th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
After seeing Troy Polamalu get yanked from behind by the hair last year, I don’t see why anyone would play with any significant amount of hair hanging out of the helmet.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 29th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Cultulral my butt, it’s a fashion statement. Yes, per the CBA, players have the right. Lets call it like it is here. It’s a power play to guage the NFLPA vs Ownership muscle, by both sides.
It’s all about how we’re going to split the multi-billion dollar pie. Grow up guys.
I’d suggest the owners and union work on a rule modification to figure out what to do on the first occurance of a player becoming seriously injured by being accidently dragged down by his “cultural” statement.
By the way, what’s the difference between a hair net and a skull cap?? And whatever happened to crew cuts, Afro’s, shaved heads, mohawks….
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 29th, 2008 at 7:28 am
I am not a lawyer, but as I read the CBA:
Article VII, Section 2 states: “Clubs may make and enforce reasonable rules governing players’ appearance on the field and in public places while representing the Clubs; provided, however, that no player will be disciplined because of hair length or facial hair.”
It reads as if clubs (teams) cannot discipline players due to their hair length or facial hair, but why would that extend to the league?
Assuming this rule passes (and I don’t think it will) then the league would be creating a rule against the hair length, and the league would be disciplining players…. Wouldn’t that be a “loop hole”?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 29th, 2008 at 9:03 am
It could be both the league and players association are breaking Mawae in easily with a straightforward “issue” to give him a taste of his new responsibilities. And at the same time, assessing how he’ll handle such responsibilities.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 29th, 2008 at 9:45 am
I believe when the league proposed this rule change it was worded that no player could have hair obstructing the name on the back of the jersey. So I believe they are going to play the angle that all names on back of jerseys must be visible, and not really attack the hair length issue. Further if they adopt the new rule, they don’t have to worry about the CBA prohibiting player discipline for hair length can be avoided on two fronts… (1) they are not requiring a player to cut their hair to a certain length, simply just make sure it doesnt cover the name on the back of the jersey (up to the player to ensure the name on their jersey is visible). (2) the more important aspect is that they don’t ever have to discipline player for violating this rule, simply flag any player on the field of play whose name is not visible. A penalty during game play is not considered discipline under the CBA guidelines. So, if the owners want to adopt this rule I don’t really see anything the union can do to prevent it other than make a lot of noise publicly I hope a negative backlash encourages the owners to backoff.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 29th, 2008 at 10:21 am
I admire Kevin Mawae, and agree that he is doing his job in defending the right of some players to look like morons on the field. He, of course, goes a step beyond his legal position when he says that the NFL also should not be able to require the hair to be tucked up under the helmet- they do it all the time, and in fact when Randy Moss was in Minnesota, he played a couple of games where he unbraided his hair and the massive ‘fro was all tucked, with no problem. Clobbered Kansas City that game too.
But there is no reason I can see at all that the NFL can’t do two other things, since they (properly) can’t restrict the length of hair. 1) They can, as in food service operations, require the use of a hair net to hold it up high enough so that the name and number are not obscured, and 2) they can expand the other Polamalu rule, the one that doesn’t outlaw you tackling a player by grabbing his hair. They could also make it legal for an offensive player to grab hair when blocking- you can’t take a fistful of jersey, but feel free to glom onto a hank of hair.
Works for me. In fact, should be fun, especially the instant replays reversing penalties.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 29th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I thought the NFL was, at its core, a business - what’s wrong with these players? In MLB clubhouses, what the manager says is law - if they say (like Joe Torre) no facial hair, then there’s no facial hair - no questions asked. The NFL has succeeded in breeding a generation of players who believe that they’re the be-all end-all of the league and who have no respect for authority whatsoever.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 8:24 am
I guess as a personal preference, I’d say I really don’t like when players wear their hair so long outside of their helmet, but if the NFL is trying to dictate whether guys wear their hair long or not is just wrong. I know that is not how the rule reads. But it seems they are just sidestepping the actual rule.
Now again, from my personal perspective, I dislike the look. I actually thinks it looks stupid, but really, to each his own.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 31st, 2008 at 9:08 am
Think I’ve got a better idea. Since this rule is being “challenged” because they say the hair covers up the player’s name, why not just move the name so that it’s across the butt instead of the shoulders? Then we won’t have to worry about it till their hair gets REALLY long!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated