Herr Goodell wants uniformity.

[metallicatz]

Quote: Originally Posted by ubernoob

You try to stabilize the head when its a head/neck/spine injury. Removing the helmet kinda defeats that.

That makes sense, but somehow I doubt that's why they were outlawed. I think teh league simply didn't want the players looking like Darth Vader. All those rules posted by Cooley seem to be about aesthetics, not player safety.

Trainers unscrew the facemask in those spinal/neck injury instances, and the visor comes off with the facemask.

[J0nnD0ugh]

Quote: Originally Posted by OSUFan_88

I guess I'm more curious as to why people care this much about something that shouldn't matter to them?

I think it says something positive about a person when their daily lives aren't affected but still feel outrage when they see injustice or unfairness.

[JBH3]

Quote: Originally Posted by J0nnD0ugh

That's my point. Why would that matter to anybody??? As long as people looks relatively neat & it doesn't impair anyone from doing their job, why worry about it? You're going to be playing in mud, rain, dirt, pick up grass stains, paint on the field, & become bloody messes & we're worried about looking "professional". The biggest change in athletic clothing was probably Michael Jordan wearing xtra long shorts. That really made him look uncouth & affected his play.

Rules are rules, and given that the NFL probably has VERY STRICT contracts w/ their sponsors they are required to adhere to that. If Reebok doesn't see their logo on a players hat then they have every right to be upset...do they not?

Quote: Originally Posted by N51_rob

JBH I too and in the military and still active so I get where you are coming from have a Change of Command friday! YAY Formations in the blistering sun! Anyways, some of the rules seem silly to me like the pants covering the knee. Is that really worth 5,000? $7,500 for a chin strap? This is the same league that fined Jon Kitna $5,000 for wearing a hat that had the cross on it because it wasn't a rebok hat? (fine was later resinded after backlash from fans and media) I have no problem with the visor rule, and I understand that you want to show off the company that is paying a lot of money for the rights to be the offical outfitter of the NFL, what difference does tape/shoe color make. The NFL is by far the worst league at marketing it's markee players unless your name is Manning or Brady. There is a reason why a guys try to market themselves after TD's, sacks, etc. The league won't do it for them.

Change of commands were always fun. The worst for me was President Ronald Reagan's funeral procession in D.C.

About 2 buses of Marines were bussed from Quantico in full Alpha-dress and this was smack dab in the middle of the summer. Hot as hades in a wool gaberdine uniform. I hot a civilian behind me nearly die of heatstroke, and the ambulance nearly run me over since I was at the position of attention and couldn't move. A SSgt walking down the file saw me and was like "Devil Dog you can move out of the way, just do it in a military manner" lol....but I digress...

BACK ON TOPIC...Like I stated above to JohnDough...it's a lot of these sponsor contracts that dictate this. Those bring revenue into the NFL, and it's Goodell's job to protect the NFLs interest. I can't blame him for that. Whether the players are mature enough or not isn't the issue, they're supposed to act and conduct themselves as professionals regardless. Some are capable of this, others aren't up to task.

If Clinton Portis wants to look cool w/ a particular un-sanctioned pair of socks and gets fined for it...well chalk it up to just part of doing business. His desire to wear burgundy socks costs him X amount of dollars. That's his problem not mine.

I think us average joes realize the cost of these fines, given their exboritant figure in relation to our salaries, and have "sticker-shock" so to speak.

Well $7,500 is more like $75 to McNabb who makes millions off of Campbells soup and other endorsements before even considering his salary and bonus money + incentives.

I'd venture to say that the only players lining the NFLs pockets on fines are the stars who don't care and have the money to do so, or the extremely stupid types who just wanna "Do Me" or "rebel" against the establishment.

[J0nnD0ugh]

Quote: Originally Posted by JBH3

Rules are rules, and given that the NFL probably has VERY STRICT contracts w/ their sponsors they are required to adhere to that. If Reebok doesn't see their logo on a players hat then they have every right to be upset...do they not?

Rules are rules because the NFL chose to entertain them. We aren't talking about federal law or the laws of physics. As if the NFL can't dictate to corporations what they'll allow on the field.

The real reason for baloney like this is not product placement. The underlying purpose is to destroy the will of the individual to make him conform to the collective, whose will in reality is dictated by the more powerful individual. Get to the inner man, by controlling the exterior.

[JBH3]

Quote: Originally Posted by J0nnD0ugh

Rules are rules because the NFL chose to entertain them. We aren't talking about federal law or the laws of physics. As if the NFL can't dictate to corporations what they'll allow on the field. The real reason for baloney like this is not product placement. The underlying purpose is to destroy the will of the individual to make him conform to the collective, whose will in reality is dictated by the more powerful individual. Get to the inner man, by controlling the exterior.

Right...the will of the NFL is to employ mindless robots.

If Reebok says we will give you $100,000,000 if we outfit your players w/ uniforms, but $300,000,000 if they also wear reebok hats post-game, sideline, etc. then hmmm...if you're the commish which do you take?

No Reebok, in the aspect of troop welfare and individualism I'll have to decline your $200,000,000 million dollar additional offer on the hats because as commish it's more important for me to allow our players a certain level of individualism.

Yea...ok.

[J0nnD0ugh]

Quote: Originally Posted by JBH3

Right...the will of the NFL is to employ mindless robots. If Reebok says we will give you $100,000,000 if we outfit your players w/ uniforms, but $300,000,000 if they also wear reebok hats post-game, sideline, etc. then hmmm...if you're the commish which do you take? No Reebok, in the aspect of troop welfare and individualism I'll have to decline your $200,000,000 million dollar additional offer on the hats because as commish it's more important for me to allow our players a certain level of individualism. Yea...ok.

And you really think that Reebok would sever their relationship w/the most lucrative athletic business in America if their logo is blocked by, say, a third of the NFL personel? You know that's a bunch of bull.

The NFL can write their ticket & all the apparel companies would gladly pony up the price just to be the official outfitter.

[JBH3]

Quote: Originally Posted by J0nnD0ugh

And you really think that Reebok would sever their relationship w/the most lucrative athletic business in America if their logo is blocked by, say, a third of the NFL personel? You know that's a bunch of bull. The NFL can write their ticket & all the apparel companies would gladly pony up the price just to be the official outfitter.

Ok...so then Goodell WANTS the players to wear a sanctioned brand of hat, and WANTS to bring in more revenue into the league and gives that to the highest bidder (Reebok).

Again...nothing wrong with that. It's as simple as wearing a hat, the right shoes, socks, putting some freaking tape on a towell, etc.

I mean teams I'm sure have staffers do this stuff, but ultimately the player's will or rebellion for the sake of visibility counters that.

[Lintyfresh85]

People are always looking to complain about something.