PDA

View Full Version : The "hair rule" and the "force out"



TimBuff10
03-27-2008, 10:22 AM
I don't think these are official new rules yet but I love them.

I don't know what it is but I can't stand seeing player's hair flying around behind them as they run around the field. To me the best play in the NFL since Elway did the helicopter was whenn Larry Johnson pulled Polumalu down by his hair. Anyway it looks like they are not going to allow hair to be exposed if it comes out of the helmet. I like it, great move!

The incidental face maske call will be removed, now you just get the 15 yarder if you actually tug on the helmet... I like this rule makes sense.

And the one that really bugged me was the force out rule. I had nothing but hate for the rule allowing the officials to judge a catch that came down out of bounds saying that "if the defender wouldn't have pushed him out, he would have came down in bounds". I always thought, "well IF the defender wasn't there he would have made a touchdown on every play". Fact is, the defender was there and did his job defending. Great rule!

Three good rules I think!

lex
03-27-2008, 10:35 AM
I agree with you on the hair rule.

Not sure how I feel on the facemask rule...I can see this being exploited. I can see people complaining when someone gets 15 for what is a mild facemask.

I dont like relaxing the forceout rule.

NameUsedBefore
03-27-2008, 10:36 AM
I don't like any of those rules...

GEM
03-27-2008, 10:39 AM
The hair rule....blah. If the guy wants his hair friggen long, what is it hurting the NFL? If the guy doesn't grab his hair it's most likely a horse collar. If they are worried about image, I don't think the hair is the problem. Perhaps they should look at taking away huge contracts to a rookie who in most likelihood has never seen that kind of money and he goes a bit out of control. Perhaps that is a rule better visited.

BOSSHOGG30
03-27-2008, 10:39 AM
Did they vote on a rule that will limit or get rid of the hip hop culture/image in the sport?

BroncoJoe
03-27-2008, 10:43 AM
I'm indifferent on the hair rule, although I'll say I wouldn't have my job if I had hair like that. If that's what the NFL wants, so be it.

Thought the incidental face-mask rule was stupid. If it get's tugged, penalty. If it's just touched, BFD.

Don't like the change to the force out rule either.

GEM
03-27-2008, 10:46 AM
Did they vote on a rule that will limit or get rid of the hip hop culture/image in the sport?

Correctumundo. Quoted for truth.

shank
03-27-2008, 12:02 PM
i LOVE the hair rule. i can't stand that...

i don't get the facemask rule... is any facemask going to be 15 yards, or will it be only tugs that receive a penalty at all? if the rule is just abolition of the incidental, then i like it, but if they are going to just call all facemasks a 15 yard penalty, then i don't like it.

so corners can just push a guy out of bounds now? not even give him any chance to get his feet in bounds? that's going to eliminate a lot of scoring, that the nfl has been doing everything they can to increase...

BOSSHOGG30
03-27-2008, 12:10 PM
i LOVE the hair rule. i can't stand that...

i don't get the facemask rule... is any facemask going to be 15 yards, or will it be only tugs that receive a penalty at all? if the rule is just abolition of the incidental, then i like it, but if they are going to just call all facemasks a 15 yard penalty, then i don't like it.

so corners can just push a guy out of bounds now? not even give him any chance to get his feet in bounds? that's going to eliminate a lot of scoring, that the nfl has been doing everything they can to increase...

The face mask rule is pretty much saying they are getting rid of what would normally be called for a 5 yard face mask... the 15 yard rule will still be in effect.

As for the out of bounds rule... yes the defensive guy can actully do something besides stand there and look pretty. About time they give the defense some power to stop an offensive player.

Fan in Exile
03-27-2008, 12:12 PM
I really don't like the out of bounds rule, I think you are going to see a lot of guys going for big hits on receivers who are trying to catch a ball so that they can knock them out of bounds. It seems pretty dangerous to me, they are just asking for trouble.

shank
03-27-2008, 12:14 PM
The face mask rule is pretty much saying they are getting rid of what would normally be called for a 5 yard face mask... the 15 yard rule will still be in effect.

k i like that then...

so happy about the hair. i can't wait to see polamalu's helmet
http://finurlig.se/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/hockey-darkhelmet.jpg
that he needs to fit that hair-do...
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/800121.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1936808AB6AB7C5FBAB05693911E61D4776 284831B75F48EF45

BOSSHOGG30
03-27-2008, 12:28 PM
I really don't like the out of bounds rule, I think you are going to see a lot of guys going for big hits on receivers who are trying to catch a ball so that they can knock them out of bounds. It seems pretty dangerous to me, they are just asking for trouble.

They didn't take way the rule about hitting a defenseless receiver... i'm sure they will get the 15 yarder if it gets to dangerous.

Fan in Exile
03-27-2008, 12:37 PM
That's a good point, it still seems like they are asking for trouble though.

BOSSHOGG30
03-27-2008, 12:50 PM
The hair rule isn't a bad one as long as the NFL doesn't force the player to cut their hair. I see no problem with the players having to tuck their hair in their jersey or keep it from covering their name on their jersey.

TimBuff10
03-27-2008, 12:59 PM
The hair rule isn't a bad one as long as the NFL doesn't force the player to cut their hair. I see no problem with the players having to tuck their hair in their jersey or keep it from covering their name on their jersey.


So you are saying it is a bad idea for every other business out there that doesn't let people work there if their long hair is more important than their job?

The way it reads right now, they are just required to have any hair that comes out of their helmet be tucked back in the helmet. If you have ever worn a football helmet beyond sitting in front of your TV you know that tucking in alot of hair to fit in there isn't going to make for a good fit.

My question is, when the hair does pop out will there be fines or 5, 10, or 15 yard penalties? I am betting they play it like the rule with the socks and just do fines but yardage penalties would be fun too.

BroncoJoe
03-27-2008, 12:59 PM
From John Clayton @ ESPN:


Here is a look ahead at the meeting, which starts over the weekend with committee reports and then begins in earnest on Monday.

1. Reseeding the playoffs: Traditionalists like the idea of highlighting division races. Win your division and you get a playoff home game. What concerned the commissioner over the past couple of seasons is how division winners rested players in December after clinching.

Goodell is all for having a competitive 17-week season. After reviewing Goodell's idea, the competition committee voted 5-3 in favor of a reseeding plan. The plan still would reward the top two seeds with bye weeks and second-round home games. The change would involve seeds Nos. 3-6.

Under the proposal, a wild-card team can get a home game if it has a better record than the division winners. If a tie-breaker is needed, the division winner with a same record would get the nod over the wild-card. Twice in the past three years, the Jacksonville Jaguars had a better record than some AFC division winners but had to play on the road in the playoffs. There is no doubt that this change would create more competitive games in Weeks 16 and 17.

Playoff home games are critical and coaches won't have the luxury of resting players because they will be watching the scoreboard against good wild-card teams to try to finish the seasons with better records. This might be a hard plan to pass, though. Schedule is everything in the NFL, and a wild-card team with an easy schedule will have a distinct advantage over champions in tough divisions.

Take the NFC East, for example. Four teams finished with records of 8-8 or better, and the New York Giants won the Super Bowl. Based on last year's records, all the teams in the NFC East face .520 schedules or tougher in 2008. The teams in the NFC South have comparably have easy schedules, .469 or easier. The four teams in a tough division could form a voting block to stop change.

2. Increasing the roster from 80 to 86 players: What seemed simple a year ago is now more complicated because of the potential for labor problems.

In past years, teams used NFL Europa roster exemptions to bring more than 85 players to training camp. Because it was losing $30 million a year and not developing as many players as hoped, NFL Europa folded last year. The current rules limit the number of signed players on rosters to 80.

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers proposed increasing rosters to 90. Other teams have different numbers in mind and are leaving it to the meeting to continue the debate. The competition committee is pushing an idea to increase preseason rosters to a maximum of 86. Believe it or not, there is a decent block of owners who want to keep rosters at 80, thinking 80 players in enough. The committee is pitching the idea that the extra six players on a roster are necessary -- and they are -- because teams need to fill out eight-man practice squads during the fall and they need replacement players because of injuries.

Budget-minded owners are trying to save some dollars because of the crunch of the last collective bargaining extension. Here's where the owners could be pinching pennies a little too much. The worst fear in training camp is an injury. By keeping rosters at 80 with no exemptions, more veteran players will be asked to do more things during preseason games, risking them to further injury. Salaries for camp players are roughly $1,000 a week. For the savings of $6,000 a week, teams could be risking players worth $1 million or more to injury.

Currently, five teams have 70 or more players on their rosters. If owners don't change this rule and add some extra offseason roster spots, teams will be releasing players after they start signing their draft choices.

3. Allowing defensive players to wear radio devices in their helmets: Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 and the New England Patriots lost a 2008 first-round draft choice because a team videographer was caught taping the signals of defensive coaches during games. Technology comes to the rescue.

The NFL is ready to move ahead with a plan to put radio-receiving devices in the helmets of defensive players. Under the proposal, the competition committee is ready to push for a plan for teams to designate two defenders to have radio helmets, but only one will be allowed to be on the field on any given play. The number of designated helmets is a hot topic among coaches because of situation substitution and injury. Most coaches are pushing for at least three helmets to be "wired up."

After studying the topic, the committee felt more comfortable with two. What will be interesting is whether the coaches defeat this proposal because they don't feel as though they have enough defensive players wired. This is the third year the committee has tried to go ahead with speakers in defensive players' helmets, and this is the best chance for its passage.

4. Including specific field-goal attempt replays: Call this the Phil Dawson rule.

In Baltimore last season, the Cleveland Browns kicker had a last-play of regulation, game-tying field goal attempt that bounced off the upright and hit inside the crossbar. The kick initially was ruled no good, but after a lengthy discussion among officials the decision was overturned and Dawson's boot counted. Either way, the referee didn't have the luxury of seeing a replay because field goals aren't considered a reviewable play.

Under this proposal, field goals can be reviewed on a limited basis. The new replay review would be of a kick that is no higher than top of the uprights and within the width of the goalposts. Some owners not wishing to expand replay any further might vote this proposal down.

TimBuff10
03-27-2008, 01:03 PM
Wow, I had no idea that that many people liked the old force out rule.

How do we know that the player would have come down in bounds? There is no way to tell because he didn't, he was pushed out of bounds by the defender. Same thing to say that he could have run another 20 yards for a touchdown if the defender wasn't able to give him that nudge to make his foot go out of bounds while running down the sideline.

Just always seemed weird to me to have "ifs" in the game rules.

If they really want to get scoring up then they should go with just having one foot down in bounds instead of having to get two in like college ball.

BOSSHOGG30
03-27-2008, 01:07 PM
So you are saying it is a bad idea for every other business out there that doesn't let people work there if their long hair is more important than their job?

I don't understand this question. Can you please word it as a complete sentence?



The way it reads right now, they are just required to have any hair that comes out of their helmet be tucked back in the helmet. If you have ever worn a football helmet beyond sitting in front of your TV you know that tucking in alot of hair to fit in there isn't going to make for a good fit.

They make skull caps that help keep your hair tight and if your hair is so long and puffy that you can't wear a helmet safely then I would think their is a problem regardless of what the rule is.



My question is, when the hair does pop out will there be fines or 5, 10, or 15 yard penalties? I am betting they play it like the rule with the socks and just do fines but yardage penalties would be fun too.

I'm sure they will be asked to tuck it back in without any fines or penalties. Just like their jerseys.

topscribe
03-27-2008, 01:07 PM
I'm indifferent on the hair rule, although I'll say I wouldn't have my job if I had hair like that. If that's what the NFL wants, so be it.

Thought the incidental face-mask rule was stupid. If it get's tugged, penalty. If it's just touched, BFD.

Don't like the change to the force out rule either.

I really could care less about the hair rule, myself. I'm not into dress codes in
a football environment . . . although I might be willing to evaluate cheerleader
outfits. :D

I have always thought the facemask rule was asinine. The prinicple is
safety. A player isn't going to be injured by touching it. If the officiall sees
the fingers wrapped around a bar, call it.

The force out rule gives me mixed emotions. All I care is that they be
consistent, I guess. I have seen incidences where they called the receiver
out of bounds after being pushed, anyway. So, if this means they call it all
the time, at least it will be more consistent.

-----

BOSSHOGG30
03-27-2008, 01:14 PM
I wished the refs would pay more attention to receivers pushing off the defensive backs. Randy Moss is an expert at this. I don't think it is fair that an offensive player can man handle a defensive back yet if a defensive back barely bumps, grabs, or touches a receiver they throw a flag.

TimBuff10
03-27-2008, 01:18 PM
I don't understand this question. Can you please word it as a complete sentence?


You are saying it is a bad idea for businesses to make their employees choose between a hairstyle and a career? How many players would choose a hairstyle over a professional football career? Sounds like a good way to help weed out the people who don't want to be there as bad as others do.

AlWilsonizKING
03-27-2008, 01:23 PM
Did they vote on a rule that will limit or get rid of the hip hop culture/image in the sport?


********EDIT***********


The hair rule is dumb, not sure on the facemask or FO rules but I guess we'll see.




PEACE!!!

turftoad
03-27-2008, 01:25 PM
I really doesn't matter to me, any of them. Lets just make the game better.

On the hair issue:
In the NFL they wear uniforms. These guys are supposed to look alike and be a team. When I was in the Marine Corps you NEVER varied form your uniform. Again, look a like and be a team. Of course guys will be different size, weight etc... so they will not always look identical. But there are uniform rules that people need to follow.
Like I said, it really doesn't matter to me but a uniform is a uniform. If you want to express your personality and your individualism, do it when you're NOT at work.

From: merriam-webster

Main Entry: 1uni·form
Pronunciation: \ˈyü-nə-ˌfȯrm\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English uniforme, from Middle French, from Latin uniformis, from uni- + -formis -form
Date: 15th century
1 : having always the same form, manner, or degree : not varying or variable <uniform procedures>
2 : consistent in conduct or opinion <uniform interpretation of laws>
3 : of the same form with others : conforming to one rule or mode : consonant

To bad but, I'm sure someone, somewhere will turn this into a racial issue. :tsk:

GEM
03-27-2008, 01:26 PM
The hair rule is dumb, not sure on the facemask or FO rules but I guess we'll see.




PEACE!!!


No one said it's right, but what you do see in the NFL is that culture getting in more than your normal DUI kind of trouble. No one likes the generalization, but you can't say it isn't there.

GEM
03-27-2008, 01:28 PM
You are saying it is a bad idea for businesses to make their employees choose between a hairstyle and a career? How many players would choose a hairstyle over a professional football career? Sounds like a good way to help weed out the people who don't want to be there as bad as others do.

By getting a haircut? What are we....back in the 60's? Get a haircut hippy. :rolleyes:

Some of the players (Palamalu) have it because of their heritage.....take a look at most Samoans, they have long hair, it's not because they think it looks nice.

That is just silly.....if you don't get a haircut, you don't want your job.

BOSSHOGG30
03-27-2008, 01:29 PM
You are saying it is a bad idea for businesses to make their employees choose between a hairstyle and a career? How many players would choose a hairstyle over a professional football career? Sounds like a good way to help weed out the people who don't want to be there as bad as others do.

I'm saying I don't care what kind of hair style they have. I think the NFL has a right to protects its image and if they feel that the hair styles are ruining that image then they can inforce rules to keep the hair styles to a certain standard on the field. If a guy wants to have an afro.. by all means keep you afro, but come game day do everything within you powers to meet the standards the NFL sets.

Tattoo are a similar problem. I'm all for tattoos, but you can't have a tattoo of a naked lady on your neck showing when you are trying to look professional. Cover the boobies up when your working and try to look professional. You can flash the tattoo on your own time, but not national TV time.

BOSSHOGG30
03-27-2008, 01:31 PM
By getting a haircut? What are we....back in the 60's? Get a haircut hippy. :rolleyes:

Some of the players (Palamalu) have it because of their heritage.....take a look at most Samoans, they have long hair, it's not because they think it looks nice.

That is just silly.....if you don't get a haircut, you don't want your job.

I don't think the league is asking players to cut their hair. I think they want to them to pony tail it, hide it, or keep it from covering the name of the back of the jersey. Many jobs require employees to do something with their hair in order for them to work safely and look professional.

HolyDiver
03-27-2008, 01:31 PM
Wow, I had no idea that that many people liked the old force out rule.

How do we know that the player would have come down in bounds? There is no way to tell because he didn't, he was pushed out of bounds by the defender. Same thing to say that he could have run another 20 yards for a touchdown if the defender wasn't able to give him that nudge to make his foot go out of bounds while running down the sideline.

Just always seemed weird to me to have "ifs" in the game rules.

If they really want to get scoring up then they should go with just having one foot down in bounds instead of having to get two in like college ball.

I hate the force out rule. If a defender is able to push a player out of bounds before he gets both feet down, it should be an incomplete pass.

GEM
03-27-2008, 01:32 PM
I don't think the league is asking players to cut their hair. I think they want to them to pony tail it, hide it, or keep it from covering the name of the back of the jersey. Many jobs require employees to do something with their hair in order for them to work safely and look professional.

I don't have a problem with that. You may see horse collars get called a bit more often. :lol:

NameUsedBefore
03-27-2008, 01:39 PM
The force out rule is needed. Trust me, you'll be PISSED if a possible GW-TD didn't happen cause the defender shoved the receiver out of bounds while he was in the air.

HolyDiver
03-27-2008, 01:40 PM
The force out rule is needed. Trust me, you'll be PISSED if a possible GW-TD didn't happen cause the defender shoved the receiver out of bounds while he was in the air.


No I wouldn't.............I would feel no different than if he had only gotten one foot in bounds.

Medford Bronco
03-27-2008, 01:43 PM
The hair rule....blah. If the guy wants his hair friggen long, what is it hurting the NFL? If the guy doesn't grab his hair it's most likely a horse collar. If they are worried about image, I don't think the hair is the problem. Perhaps they should look at taking away huge contracts to a rookie who in most likelihood has never seen that kind of money and he goes a bit out of control. Perhaps that is a rule better visited.

The can all it the Travis Henry rule if worried about image
of the spoiled scumbag athlete who does not care about
anything but himself.

BOSSHOGG30
03-27-2008, 01:44 PM
What game was it last year that the receiver made that touchdown catch on Champ Bailey where Champ could of pushed him out of bounce but he had to allow him to come down and he scored a touchdown on us? Does anyone remember that play? All I remember is Champ was defenseless and the receiver made one hell of a grab but I doubt he would of made it look so easy if Champ was aloud to push him.

BroncoJoe
03-27-2008, 01:46 PM
What do you all think of the possible change in seating rule for the playoffs?

NameUsedBefore
03-27-2008, 01:46 PM
No I wouldn't.............I would feel no different than if he had only gotten one foot in bounds.

Well, I would. The amount of air these players can put between them and the ground is considerable. Plenty of times they can easily come back into the field of play but a defender drills into 'em and throws them out of bounds. You take that rule out and you're looking at the percentage of sideline plays go down not only because the rule itself, but because defenders will go for the player instead of the ball knowing they can just throw him out instead of knock the ball down.

TimBuff10
03-27-2008, 01:47 PM
By getting a haircut? What are we....back in the 60's? Get a haircut hippy. :rolleyes:

Some of the players (Palamalu) have it because of their heritage.....take a look at most Samoans, they have long hair, it's not because they think it looks nice.

That is just silly.....if you don't get a haircut, you don't want your job.


It's the 2000s but calling for hippies to get a haircut has never changed.

The only Samoans I see that have long hair like that are those that typically don't have careers. Maybe he should go without a jersey and pads too, you know just paint his face and play like that. Maybe even bring some torches with him to twirl around. They are supposed to be on a team, if they want to stand out, let their play stand out, not their culture which has no place on a football field.

turftoad
03-27-2008, 01:48 PM
The force out rule is needed. Trust me, you'll be PISSED if a possible GW-TD didn't happen cause the defender shoved the receiver out of bounds while he was in the air.

This will work the other way also.

GEM
03-27-2008, 01:55 PM
It's the 2000s but calling for hippies to get a haircut has never changed.

The only Samoans I see that have long hair like that are those that typically don't have careers. Maybe he should go without a jersey and pads too, you know just paint his face and play like that. Maybe even bring some torches with him to twirl around. They are supposed to be on a team, if they want to stand out, let their play stand out, not their culture which has no place on a football field.

Wow.....a person's culture is always with them...cause believe it or not, they do have a life outside of football. There will be culture when football is long gone.

So we get it....if the NFL asked you to sell out what you believed in based on their generalizations, you'd do it, because it's a job right. That's pretty sad on your part, but unlike you, I won't pass judgement and hope that you can do dances around your living room with torches.

GEM
03-27-2008, 01:58 PM
What game was it last year that the receiver made that touchdown catch on Champ Bailey where Champ could of pushed him out of bounce but he had to allow him to come down and he scored a touchdown on us? Does anyone remember that play? All I remember is Champ was defenseless and the receiver made one hell of a grab but I doubt he would of made it look so easy if Champ was aloud to push him.

Wasn't that the Indy game?

BroncoAV06
03-27-2008, 02:15 PM
Wow, people not having jobs because of hair! Would not want any of you as my boss. I am fine if they have to tuck it in of course, but if they have to cut it that is bull. Put it in a pony tail and tuck it, no need to cut it off, and where are all these jobs outside of a factory worker that make there workers cut their hair to what they want? I am going to stay away from those jobs.

turftoad
03-27-2008, 02:24 PM
Wow.....a person's culture is always with them...cause believe it or not, they do have a life outside of football. There will be culture when football is long gone.

So we get it....if the NFL asked you to sell out what you believed in based on their generalizations, you'd do it, because it's a job right. That's pretty sad on your part, but unlike you, I won't pass judgement and hope that you can do dances around your living room with torches.

Like I said, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other but, a uniform is a uniform. The concept for a team is to be uniform.

I think his culture is great and respect him for keeping up with it. Like you said, "There will be culture when football is long gone".

Nobody is asking him to give up his culture. They will be asking him to put his hair up or out of the way for 3 hours a week. When you're on the football field, it doesn't matter if you're white, black, yellow or Samoan. You are a football player, thats all.

The other 164 hrs of the week they can live thier life outside of football. Except practice of course. Don't forget about practice. I think they'd let them hang thier hair in practice though.

BroncoJoe
03-27-2008, 02:24 PM
Wow, people not having jobs because of hair! Would not want any of you as my boss. I am fine if they have to tuck it in of course, but if they have to cut it that is bull. Put it in a pony tail and tuck it, no need to cut it off, and where are all these jobs outside of a factory worker that make there workers cut their hair to what they want? I am going to stay away from those jobs.

Pretty much any job that pays more than a factory worker.

broncohead
03-27-2008, 02:27 PM
I don't see any problem with it right now. If you have long hair don't get upset when someone grabs it. As far as trying to uphold an image in the NFL what about the guys with corn rows? They seem more like the "pop culture" to me. Who would you rather higher, a person with long hair or a person with full sleave tatoos? I'd take the long hair any day.

BroncoJoe
03-27-2008, 02:28 PM
I can't believe how many people are stuck on the hair thing. They're also talking about changing the seeding for the playoffs. A wild-card team could actually have a home game if their record is better than the divisional winner.

I think that's pretty interesting.

broncohead
03-27-2008, 02:29 PM
Pretty much any job that pays more than a factory worker.

Not true. I know of a lot of good paying jobs that allow long hair.

BroncoJoe
03-27-2008, 02:30 PM
Not true. I know of a lot of good paying jobs that allow long hair.

It was somewhat tounge-in-cheek.

broncohead
03-27-2008, 02:30 PM
Like I said, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other but, a uniform is a uniform. The concept for a team is to be uniform.

I think his culture is great and respect him for keeping up with it. Like you said, "There will be culture when football is long gone".

Nobody is asking him to give up his culture. They will be asking him to put his hair up or out of the way for 3 hours a week. When you're on the football field, it doesn't matter if you're white, black, yellow or Samoan. You are a football player, thats all.

The other 164 hrs of the week they can live thier life outside of football. Except practice of course. Don't forget about practice. I think they'd let them hang thier hair in practice though.

This isn't the service. It's a sport. What other sports have a hair rule?

turftoad
03-27-2008, 02:31 PM
Pretty much any job that pays more than a factory worker.

Speaking of hair........... Joe, sorry, you have no say in the matter. :D

TimBuff10
03-27-2008, 02:33 PM
Wow.....a person's culture is always with them...cause believe it or not, they do have a life outside of football. There will be culture when football is long gone.

So we get it....if the NFL asked you to sell out what you believed in based on their generalizations, you'd do it, because it's a job right. That's pretty sad on your part, but unlike you, I won't pass judgement and hope that you can do dances around your living room with torches.

Can't argue your first statement at all and as long as it doesn't invade on my rights I don't mind what they do.

As for your second... Not sure where you are going with that one but if the NFL offered me millions to promote their product, from what I have seen, I think I could believe in it and help them sell it without feeling like I was any sort of "sell out". The NFL is a business where the goal is to make money which usually goes with pleasing the most people thus making more money.

turftoad
03-27-2008, 02:34 PM
This isn't the service. It's a sport. What other sports have a hair rule?

I know it's not the service.

All I'm saying is that a uniform is exactly that, a uniform. A team is usually uniform. Military, sport, job whatever. You have to play by the rules.

Look back to the last page, I posted the definition for uniform.

BroncoJoe
03-27-2008, 02:37 PM
Speaking of hair........... Joe, sorry, you have no say in the matter. :D

Basturd.

broncohead
03-27-2008, 02:39 PM
I know it's not the service.

All I'm saying is that a uniform is exactly that, a uniform. A team is usually uniform. Military, sport, job whatever. You have to play by the rules.

Look back to the last page, I posted the definition for uniform.

To me a uniform is something you ware that is the same as everyone elses. Tatoos and piercings are different because they aren't natural. This has nothing to do with hair. Hair doesn't hurt anyone.

turftoad
03-27-2008, 02:41 PM
Basturd.

Couldn't help myself Joe, sorry. :heh:

TimBuff10
03-27-2008, 02:42 PM
Wow, people not having jobs because of hair! Would not want any of you as my boss. I am fine if they have to tuck it in of course, but if they have to cut it that is bull. Put it in a pony tail and tuck it, no need to cut it off, and where are all these jobs outside of a factory worker that make there workers cut their hair to what they want? I am going to stay away from those jobs.

Go look at Monster or Career Builder and find me a job that pays more than $40,000 a year that lets males have long flowing hair, braids, corn rows, dreads, or anything like that. I am not saying you won't be be able to find them but it looks like the NFL is just trying to blend in with society and create a good image for its players. Besides the way they have written the rule, if it is that important, then they can just go through the annoying tasking of tucking it everytime they put on their helmet.

BOSSHOGG30
03-27-2008, 02:42 PM
Most professional jobs requires a distinct, uniform, professional appearance. I don't see the big deal with the hair thing. Not only does this rule a safer rule, but it helps the NFL's image which is on the down slide as of late.

broncohead
03-27-2008, 02:45 PM
Most professional jobs requires a distinct, uniform, professional appearance. I don't see the big deal with the hair thing. Not only does this rule a safer rule, but it helps the NFL's image which is on the down slide as of late.

Then make harsher penalties for insidences that break the law. Everyone that has long hair gets in fights, does drugs, and is apart of a gang. What the hell is this. It's just hair.

TimBuff10
03-27-2008, 02:46 PM
Who would you rather higher, a person with long hair or a person with full sleave tatoos? I'd take the long hair any day.

You don't sound like you are in the market for a job at the moment. Do you know how many people out there would kill for a good job in this economic climate? The talent pool for a good job is very thick at the moment. If someone shows up to my interview with any exposed tats, or a guy with long flowing hair, if they smell like cigarettes, or if they talk like they are a gangster I am pulling another resume from the pile of hundreds that can do the job and be the face of my business.

turftoad
03-27-2008, 02:48 PM
To me a uniform is something you ware that is the same as everyone elses. Tatoos and piercings are different because they aren't natural. This has nothing to do with hair. Hair doesn't hurt anyone.

Like I said, I don't care either way. A uniform is a uniform and a rule is a rule. Either obeyed by it or not.
If they don't want to work for the NFL, that's up to them.

Oh yeah.......... again, no one is saying they have to cut it.

broncohead
03-27-2008, 02:50 PM
You don't sound like you are in the market for a job at the moment. Do you know how many people out there would kill for a good job in this economic climate? The talent pool for a good job is very thick at the moment. If someone shows up to my interview with any exposed tats, or a guy with long flowing hair, if they smell like cigarettes, or if they talk like they are a gangster I am pulling another resume from the pile of hundreds that can do the job and be the face of my business.

The job market is high but I know of plenty of jobs that pay well over $40,000 that are pretty lenient.

topscribe
03-27-2008, 02:50 PM
Couldn't help myself Joe, sorry. :heh:

Yeah well . . .

There's more than one of us who's heads have turned red over this. :secruity:

-----

BroncoJoe
03-27-2008, 02:52 PM
The job market is high but I know of plenty of jobs that pay well over $40,000 that are pretty lenient.

Stripper?

broncohead
03-27-2008, 02:54 PM
Like I said, I don't care either way. A uniform is a uniform and a rule is a rule. Either obeyed by it or not.
If they don't want to work for the NFL, that's up to them.

Oh yeah.......... again, no one is saying they have to cut it.

So if players tuck in their hair it's supposed to help the NFL's image? And Pac man Jones is going to be let back into the NFL? I honestly don't see where they are going with the "image" thing.

broncohead
03-27-2008, 02:55 PM
Stripper?

Thats one but the oil field pays pretty good. They are always highering

dogfish
03-27-2008, 02:57 PM
hair. . . whatta dumb thing to argue about!


:lol:



must be the offseason. . . .



i do like the potential playoff re-seeding. . . why should a team that is lucky enough to play in the flimsiest division get a home game after going 9-7 when a team that went 11-5 but played in the same division as the conference's top seed has to go on the road?

turftoad
03-27-2008, 02:58 PM
Yeah well . . .

There's more than one of us who's heads have turned red over this. :secruity:

-----

So........... that means YOU can't discuss on this issue either Top. Sorry. :D

BroncoJoe
03-27-2008, 02:58 PM
Thats one but the oil field pays pretty good. They are always highering

Maybe about tats, but the people I know that work in the field - especially with the drilling equipment, either have to have their hair "out of the way" or cut short so it doesn't get caught in the machinery. It's an insurance / worker's comp thing.

TimBuff10
03-27-2008, 03:04 PM
Thats one but the oil field pays pretty good. They are always highering


Ok, so you can get "highered" as a glorified ditch digger. I know several geologists that work for oil companies and they usually wear a suit and tie to their jobs when they aren't going out to "get dirty"... None would ever be allowed to grow dreads and hair half way down their back.

broncohead
03-27-2008, 03:09 PM
I have personally worked for and have a father that is pretty high up. Not all positions require working with machinery or being ditch diggers. Safety is first but when hair isn't a safety concern they are leneint.

GEM
03-27-2008, 03:19 PM
Like I said, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other but, a uniform is a uniform. The concept for a team is to be uniform.

I think his culture is great and respect him for keeping up with it. Like you said, "There will be culture when football is long gone".

Nobody is asking him to give up his culture. They will be asking him to put his hair up or out of the way for 3 hours a week. When you're on the football field, it doesn't matter if you're white, black, yellow or Samoan. You are a football player, thats all.

The other 164 hrs of the week they can live thier life outside of football. Except practice of course. Don't forget about practice. I think they'd let them hang thier hair in practice though.


As I've said before, I don't have a problem with being asked to tuck it away out of sight, I don't agree with having to cut it off.

GEM
03-27-2008, 03:20 PM
Can't argue your first statement at all and as long as it doesn't invade on my rights I don't mind what they do.

As for your second... Not sure where you are going with that one but if the NFL offered me millions to promote their product, from what I have seen, I think I could believe in it and help them sell it without feeling like I was any sort of "sell out". The NFL is a business where the goal is to make money which usually goes with pleasing the most people thus making more money.

When you have cheating and the trouble some of the guys are in, I think hair is really the least amount of image problems.

turftoad
03-27-2008, 03:23 PM
As I've said before, I don't have a problem with being asked to tuck it away out of sight, I don't agree with having to cut it off.

Me neither. I don't think the NFL is asking them to.

dogfish
03-27-2008, 03:24 PM
When you have cheating and the trouble some of the guys are in, I think hair is really the least amount of image problems.

seriously. . . it's freakin' HAIR! what's the big deal? maybe they should get serious about finding an effective testing protocol for HGH if they're really worried about the image of the game. . . .

GEM
03-27-2008, 03:24 PM
Me neither. I don't think the NFL is asking them to.

I think that was misunderstood early on in the thread.

TimBuff10
03-27-2008, 03:24 PM
When you have cheating and the trouble some of the guys are in, I think hair is really the least amount of image problems.


Couldn't agree more, but the hair thing is an easy fix to a small problem which they are doing.

GEM
03-27-2008, 03:50 PM
Couldn't agree more, but the hair thing is an easy fix to a small problem which they are doing.

I guess they figure it's a start....my idea of a start would be NOT destroying tapes proving cheating going on in the game.....but I guess since Gooddell is the guy that ordered the tapes destroyed he probably would be looking at something as small as hair. :lol:

McKeough
03-27-2008, 03:58 PM
Wait, so these haven't been passed yet, correct?

I'm pretty much against all of them.

I'm a fan of the dreads hangin' out the helmet, TBH. I used to have long hair, and, while it wouldn't of bothered me cutting it off, I know a lot of people are much more attached. Eh, I'm not a fan of this.

And, as far as the force-out rule goes, what the hell?

This is seriously going to cut off a lot of sideline routes and fade patterns. As soon as a receiver leaves his feet to catch a ball now, it's going to be incomplete. You can push someone out of bounds from 3-4 yards away from the sideline if they're in the air. I don't see how this is going to be effective.

LoyalSoldier
03-27-2008, 04:58 PM
The force out rule is needed. Trust me, you'll be PISSED if a possible GW-TD didn't happen cause the defender shoved the receiver out of bounds while he was in the air.

Actually as it stands I have seen more people get pissed over the call being a force out because it is based off of a split second call by the refs.

NightTrainLayne
03-27-2008, 05:12 PM
I hate the force out rule. If a defender is able to push a player out of bounds before he gets both feet down, it should be an incomplete pass.


Actually as it stands I have seen more people get pissed over the call being a force out because it is based off of a split second call by the refs.

The force-out rule is subjective, but I think it's needed. If you take it to an extreme, a big line-backer could catch a receiver up in air (a little guy like Stokely), throw him over his shoulder and carry him 5-10 yards to the boundary and set him down out of bounds, and it's incomplete. . .just because his feet never came down inbounds.

Of course, that's an extreme, and you would probably never see that, but I have no doubt you could see a receiver be pushed 2-3 yards while in air, and pushed out of bounds to force an incomplete pass. Especially in the end-zone.

I don't like DB's being hamstrung as much as they are with all the pass-interference calls etc., but this rule is needed imo to keep the game fair, especially considering that receivers have to get both feet inbounds in the NFL. IMO it doesn't get used as much as it should. I see countless examples in games where a receiver was forced out and it was never recognized as such as it is. In other words, the ref's don't abuse it, so I see no need to change it.

broncohead
03-27-2008, 05:20 PM
I think it's time to give the defence a chance in the passing game. I've seen on plenty of plays where if a defender put a hand on the reciever there is a flag. Someone mentioned this earlier in the thread but players like Randy Moss is nutorious for pushing off of a defender. Where the arm extends fully then they go up for the catch and no flag. This is football not paddy cake. No more judgment calls. Either a player is inbounds or out of bounds. It's that simple. There is boundaries for a reason.

AlWilsonizKING
03-27-2008, 05:22 PM
They should just review EVERY PLAY RAN. After each play is ran, the game will stop for 2-3 minutes while every angle of every spot of field is reviewed for any possible infraction. That way there is no doubt about anything.

"We will replay the last down, as #48 of the Defense had one of his shoelaces too loose during the play." lololol



PEACE!!!

turftoad
03-29-2008, 01:22 PM
MAWAE SAYS UNION WILL FIGHT HAIR RULE

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.

Drill-N-Fill
03-29-2008, 02:05 PM
Atleast there aren't any Sikhs in the league. Then it would be a religious issue b/c they aren't allowed to cut their hair.

fcspikeit
03-29-2008, 02:18 PM
Well, I would. The amount of air these players can put between them and the ground is considerable. Plenty of times they can easily come back into the field of play but a defender drills into 'em and throws them out of bounds. You take that rule out and you're looking at the percentage of sideline plays go down not only because the rule itself, but because defenders will go for the player instead of the ball knowing they can just throw him out instead of knock the ball down.

It is good defense to box the WR against the sideline. If he has to jump for a high pass and the defender can push him out before he comes down the defender did his job and kept him from making the catch in the field of play..

fcspikeit
03-29-2008, 02:34 PM
I would like to see them bring back the push out rule that allows the WR's to come back in to catch the ball if he was pushed out of bounds. I have seen a couple times where the defender pushed the WR out of bounds, then the WR got flagged for illegal touching after coming back in.

broncosfanscott
03-29-2008, 08:22 PM
Hair rule: Don't care.....just leave it the way it is. If it is hanging out then it is fair for a player to grab an opposing player by the hair. If there are players that don't like it then cut your hair. However, I don't think the league should force players to cut their hair.

The facemask is very iffy to me. I mean if you only get 15 yards for that call then if a player grabs those bars and lets go there is no flag? Personally if you grab the facemask of a player then the ref needs to call it.....end of story.

I am fine with the force out rule the way it is, however the refs need to do a better job of being more consistent if this stays the same.

Lonestar
03-29-2008, 08:35 PM
Hair rule: Don't care.....just leave it the way it is. If it is hanging out then it is fair for a player to grab an opposing player by the hair. If there are players that don't like it then cut your hair. However, I don't think the league should force players to cut their hair.

The facemask is very iffy to me. I mean if you only get 15 yards for that call then if a player grabs those bars and lets go there is no flag? Personally if you grab the facemask of a player then the ref needs to call it.....end of story.

I am fine with the force out rule the way it is, however the refs need to do a better job of being more consistent if this stays the same.

NO one is asking anyone to cut their hair.. They are going to require it not to be visible out side of the uniform.

They are at work an company that has uniform standards.

Precisely why they are called uniforms. I see no legal reason that they could not enforce this..

TimBuff10
03-29-2008, 09:27 PM
Atleast there aren't any Sikhs in the league. Then it would be a religious issue b/c they aren't allowed to cut their hair.

I just don't understand this argument... No one is saying that they have to play football in the NFL. If the NFL requires short hair, and they are unwilling to cut it then just like other jobs. Long haired freaky people need not apply.

How many sikhs join the marines, are airline pilots, host the NBC nightly news, work as a pharmacutical reps, and so on?

shank
03-29-2008, 10:11 PM
the only way you could convince me that keeping long hair in the nfl was a good idea is if the league encouraged people tackling by the hair.

cause this just brings a smile to my face:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVO93amUv7Y

Timmy!
03-29-2008, 11:08 PM
The hair rule is kinda iffy. I was ok with the long hair thing, but if you want to have it hanging out of your helmet you have no right to get upset when somebody uses it like a handlebar to tackle you. End of story.

I like the facemask rule IF (and that's a big if) it's enforced in a consistent way. The Refs need to be consistent about the way the call it (which probably won't happen). If you get your hand on a guys facemask and remove it right away, no harm, no foul. If you pull on the facemask, 15 yards. I like it, in principle anyway.

I'm not to big on the force out rule change, although I think it does favor teams with great corners (like the Broncos). Also, I think it helps teams with slow but hard hitting safetys (ie. John Lynch)

fcspikeit
03-30-2008, 03:56 AM
Hair rule: Don't care.....just leave it the way it is. If it is hanging out then it is fair for a player to grab an opposing player by the hair. If there are players that don't like it then cut your hair. However, I don't think the league should force players to cut their hair.

The facemask is very iffy to me. I mean if you only get 15 yards for that call then if a player grabs those bars and lets go there is no flag? Personally if you grab the facemask of a player then the ref needs to call it.....end of story.

I am fine with the force out rule the way it is, however the refs need to do a better job of being more consistent if this stays the same.

If they grab the bars there will still be a penalty. If the just put their hand on the face mask, that will no longer be a penalty.

I don't know how many times I seen a BS face mask call last year where the defender just touched the face mask without using it to make the tackle and he got called.

I would like to see them call the runner for face mask's. I have seen the runner grab it while stiff arming and completely turn the defenders head. I can't remember if it was LJ or LT who did that to D.Will? IMO, they should protect the defender as well as the runner. NO grabbing the face mask at all!