hmmm, safety issue? I don't think its that unsafe. I mean, you can injure some-one's neck just as bad with an illegal facemask tackle. I doubt you could easily grip someone's hair very easily while he is running around and his hair flying this way and that. If they think its unsafe they should just make it illegal to grab by the hair. There's no need to hide the hair. Plus I like seeing those crazy guys who stand out with their long hair: Polamalu, Al Harris, A.J. Hawk, Mike McKenzie. I hope this proposal fizzles out.

The problem with making it illegal to grab the hair, rather than making the hair illegal is that then players would gain a slight advantage from having the long hair, as defenders would have to be more tentative and careful while trying to tackle a player who has long hair than they would with a player who doesn't. That said, I like the long hair, but I don't care at all if they ban it or not.

NFl new rule is food. Hair coming out of helmets is not good idea for sport. Too many players do this and sooner or later some people going to relly get hurt when other players tackle guy with hair in hand. looksa little like sisssy ball too. real men dont wear hair like girl

If any player wanted to fight it, he could claim religious discrimination. Some faiths, e.g. many Native American beliefs, have restrictions against cutting hair. All it would take is one player to be a member of such a faith or join one, and the NFL would be required by federal law to make accomodations for the player. Personally, I don't think the NFL wants to open that can of worms.

NOOOOO!!!! Al Harris will lower a few spots in my awesome players in the NFL list without his hair.

Mattingly! I told you to shave those sideburns!

I personally think each team shoudl have one cornerback or safety with such hair.

Its the greatest assist to charting outside of HDTV...

Hmm - this XP has been up for several hours. So far, the only person who unambiguously favours the NFL's latest brilliant notion is... raiderjoe. I think that gives a fair idea of the notion's relative brilliance, not so?

This rule is stupid. I personally got a theory that the players with lots of hair actually have better concussion protection than players with shaved heads. The only caveat is that it can't just be long hair, but something like a fro, dreads or something of that nature that has some density. This rule eliminates that added advantage I've created in my own mind so of course its horrible.

Since when do Raiders fans believe in good grooming?

Apparently nobody bothered to read it:

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.

Depending on how the rule is worded, I think stuffing the hair into the shirt would also be acceptable.

11: as though all that hair is going to stay inside the shirt.

i thought someone said polamalu's hair was long because of religious or cultural reasons. sounds like a first amendment lawsuit to me.

but i have to agree with raiderjoe: this rule is food.

Re: 6
I'm somehow envisioning a parallel between bizarro-pit that Ozzie Smith falls into and the Raiders...

How about banning the current lowbrow uniforms and making players wear 3-piece suits on the field? That might be nice for a change. Why allow tackling when one player can simply declare "you're tackled?" and the ballcarrier is required to admit defeat? I think fans should have a strict dress code too, we can't have any of this naked/costumed fan zaniness, it will scare away the upper-class gentleman from attending NFL matches.

This rule proposal is clearly stupid, and real men can wear their hair any way they want. Raiderjoe--this rule is "food?" WTH?

If I remind it correctly, I think Toomer cut his hair last year in order to reduce the risk of a concussion.

This just reminds me of the retards taking away endzone celebrations, and then advertising the best touchdown dances on TV and nfl.com. And I wonder if that would be raiderjoe's story if... say... Nnamdi Asomugha came to camp with hair flowing out.

This is horrible. The only good reason I had to watch the Bengals this year was watching Domata Peko and his hair flying around the field.

sorry got a little drunk last night.

ment to write this rule is good, but hit f key instead of g key by mistake

Getting drunk is food.

haha!

: Raiderjoe — 3/22/2008 @ 10:39 am
.
Dad?!

Look, assuming that tackling by the hair is unsafe, here are the options:

1) make tackling by the hair illegal. no This is stupid because it basically gives unfair advantage to those with long hair, which just seems silly

2) allow tackling by the hair Maybe well, consider this, the only person who could get injured due to this is the player himself. Letting people think for themselves? I'd vote for it...

3) Make long hair illegal. maybe well, this is a regular case of "protecting someone from himself", and people seem to be a fan of this (It is illegal to drive without a seatbelt...), I personally am not. Darwin kicks ass.

4) require all people to have long hair, and then make it illegal to tackle by the hair yes Clearly the NFL is trying to put more and more anti defensive rules into place to raise the overall score because "people like high scoring games" based upon a book or statistics or nothing whatsoever or whatever...

22 - But what about those, like Tom Brady and Matt Hasselbeck who started exhibiting male pattern baldness in their early 20's? Would They be penalized on every play? And what about the tragic loss of steaming black-guy head? (Link in name, if you don't remember the article)

They should make it illegal NOT to tackle somebody by the hair if it's within their grasp.

Well, in theory you could wrap it all up underneath your helmet, though it might make your helmet less form-fitting, and thus a bit less safe.

I just got an amusing image of a bunch of players taking off their helmets to reveal hair tied up in Princess Leia buns.

#23:

Clearly, guys like Hasslebeck and Brady must grow a mullet. Which, in my opinion, makes the rule even better.

I don't get it.
If it were dangerous players wouldn't wear their hair like that.
.
And the rules say it's fair game to tackle someone by the hair, so if you got long hair, you know that.
Why protect someone from something he's doing himself.

if the players themselves aren't having a problem with long hair sticking out from under their helmets, why bother with a rule?
I'm thinking this more of a league 'image' issue.

28: I agree, this seems more like an "image" or "brand" rule. A league that penalizes players for wearing their socks at the wrong height would naturally take issue with a player's hair making him look unique.

There should be a 15 yd penalty for getting tackled by the hair, as opposed to takling by the hair.

That way everyone tries to take shockey out by the scalp! - That would be great football.

#30... FINALLY, a discussion winner! That proposal totally rocks.

Next up: tackling hard enough to rip off a guy's tattoos. Bob Sanders might go for it, but is concerned he'd knock a few of his own off in the process.

Cut your hair hippie!

There is not a religious issue since it would be a simple matter to pin or clip the hair such that it didn't fall far out of a helmet, if any NFL players are even actually members of a religion like that. Sunday is a holy day in some religions too, but I don't see anyone worrying about the implications of that.

One of the long-haired players ought to change their last name so that the back of their jersey reads

"Billy Jack"

Because the standard of officiating in the NFL is so high and so consistent that there's nothing else to worry about...

I agree with TomHat, #22. Allow tackling by the hair, although make sure that players know that they may suffer crippling injuries if their hair is seen.

If their hair extends out of the helmet before the game then they have to sign an extra waiver expressing their knowledge that they may be causing themselves injury by not better managing their hair (I seem to remember people in the health industry and military do not have free-flowing hair).

Those who admit that they are in an injury-prone game may just earn extra respect for their tenacity.

Barring that, I agree that the NFL has a uniform. Blocking the player's name is out of uniform and could be construed as worthy of a fine. They are not requiring the cutting of hair. Some industries require hair or clothing to be maintained in a certain fashion for the safety of the employees or others and I think that this is a similar case. (if not a stronger one)

Re 33:

Can you think of anything more befitting a holy day than great football game?

This rule is stupid. In other contact sports, players are allowed to wear their hair however they want. If you have long hair, then you run the risk of getting tackled by it. Deal with it. This isn't tennis or tiddlywinks.

This isn't a safety issue, at least not the way I read the article.

The article said definitively that the stated reason for the proposed change is to avoid obscuring the uniform. Now, there is indication that safety might play a factor, but notice how the article uses words like perhaps. It is just speculation on the author's part. And honestly, if safety WAS the issue, I imagine the proponents would state that; their "case" looks a lot stronger if they have "safety" on their side. Besides, we all know how anal the league is about the uniforms, numbers, etc., so it is entirely believable to me that this is their only concern.

As for it being a First Amendment issue, nope. Not a chance. Only applies to the government. Just think about all the businesses that require their workers to work on the Sabbath. Just as an example.

As for it being a discrimination issue, at least there they would have a slim possibility of winning, but it would be *very* slim. They would have to demonstrate that the league is specifically doing this for no practical reason other then to discriminate, and I think the league could beat that quite easily.

39 - I personally know someone who is Native American and about 15 years ago won a lawsuit against a Fortune 500 company for religious discrimination when the company tried to fire him after his refusal to cut his long hair. He does follow his religion seriously and the company was forced to change their internal policies. He won because there had already been court cases like his. He basically had to prove that he was serious about his religious beliefs. Do you have any actual evidence that the NFL would win or just your own personal opinion?

What you think should happen is irrelevant. The courts have decided already. The NFL would have to make some sort of accomodation, just like several employers will schedule around employees who need certain days off or will require them to take vacation days (and yes, that is a form of accomodation). That could just mean that long hair would be required to be tucked under the shirt, which is currently a violation of uniform rules. Given how ugly that would look, I don't think the NFL will change their rules.

23- mullet would work. Or they could simply make rules against tackling players who make more than 7 million a year and then the whole problem would be solved.

40- I dont think any of the players with long hair have long hair for religious reasons. If they did, I think the NFL would allow it without quarrel anyway (assuming that for some reason they cant pin it up)

Now, Johnny Unitas ... there's a haircut you could set your watch to!

If you let players be tackled by hair-grabbing, you risk injury. If you don't, then players with hair all over the place have an advantage.

The NFL's uniform policy in general is fascist, but in this case in makes sense.

Welcome to the NFL, where it's always 1959. I'm surprised the article didn't rcommend separate showers and drinking fountains for peope of color as well.

Justanothersteve, the only thing to add to what you said is that the NFL could require people proving that it was part of their religious views.

This could get really tricky, depending on how hard the NFL decides to push it. If it is part of your culture (for Samoans, for example)... is that covered under the religious protection?

Its too bad the Puritans and others fleeing to the US from religious persecution weren't more racially diverse-- then the laws would recognize that there is a lot more than just religious exceptions.

40:

I never said it is impossible. I said it is very difficult. Read the SCOTUS decisions in this matter and you will see how difficult it is to prove this. Possible? Yes. Probable? No, not really.

Given how important the NFL had considered uniforms, it is not at all difficult for them to demonstrate that the ability to see a number or name on a uniform is important to their business. The individual claiming religious discrimination would have to demonstrate that the NFL is not instituting this rule to prevent obfuscation of the name, but rather to discriminate members of a particular religion. The NFL could very easily beat this by simply demonstrating how important they consider the numbers and names to be.

re: 26

AGREED!!

ESPECIALLY since, with Brady & Hasselback getting more and more bald by the day, we could realistically see SKULLETS on the field in a mere 5 years, and THAT would truly be a boon for our beloved sport.

BDC - I never said the religious argument was easy to prove. I said my friend had to prove he truly believed it. This went to court and took several days. I saw the court documents which took a couple dozen thick binders filled with testimony, evidence, arguments, etc. But the point is - HE WON! Technically, it was settled out-of-court, but he received a decent cash settlment and the company agreed to change their policies. It didn't surprise me to see in more recent years they have lost cases for both age and gender discrimination. Some companies never learn.

If the NFL tries to ban long hair outright and a player claims religious discrimination, chances are the NFL will lose. An NFL player and the players' union can afford better attorneys than my friend. (Just ask OJ.) Even if the NFL won, does anyone think the NFL wants the kind of publicity that comes with this sort of court trial? Like I said way back in comment #4, I don't think the NFL will want to even try to ban long hair. It's just not worth it.

I guess this could be called the Hasselback Rule

We've had several 300+ carry running backs with long hair, Stephen Jackson and Ricky Williams come to mind. I seem to recall Williams getting yanked down by his dreads once, but could be mistaken. I don't remember Jackson ever being tackled by his hair. So, a maximum of one incident between them. Granted, they're not wearing it as long as Polomalu which I suppose is the best example of this phenomenon, but then neither is anyone else. Actually, dreadlocks are particularly ill-suited to getting a good handle on as someone streaks by, and that's the style most longhairs in the NFL wear. I also don't think Kyle Turley ever had any problems with people yanking on his mane. Not the same thing as trying to run down a streaking RB/WR/CB, but you'd figure given how dirty line play is and how dirty Turley was reputed to be people would be pulling that thing constantly if it gave any advantage

Making up rules nobody outside the NFL even contemplated to address one-in-a-million chance of a freak injury in a game as pointlessly violent as football is ridiculous. I'm left to assume it's another chapter in Goodell's indeterminable campaign to crack down on the blacks