Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

RBFrank Gore fined for second violation of uniform policy
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Superman(DH23)


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 19294
Location: Abdi on the sick sig
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jaguarfan wrote:
Superman(DH23) wrote:
I just want to know where everyone's outrage was when Earl Bennett was fined $10K this year for wearing orange cleats.

Well, the cleats were actually noticeable.
So were his socks. The reason for both rules is quite simple. The NFL wants uniform. They want EVERYONE to have the same socks at the same length. Just like they want EVERYONE to wear white or black cleats. That's what uniform is. It's everyone dressed exactly the same. They don't want players drawing attn to themselves individually, the attn is to be on the team.
_________________

2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
2014 Adopt-A-Bear Alshon Jeffery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joe_is_the_best


Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Posts: 6811
Location: Houston
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As simple a rule as keeping your socks up... and you can't follow it? It's not a case of an honest mistake, he purposefully skirted the rules. If there wasn't a bigger fine for breaking again a rule that you've already been fined for, what's to keep him from doing it every week? Come on guys.

Let's you got arrested for a felony and got a 1 year sentence from the judge. Then you miss your court date, and they sentence you to an extra year. Are you going to go and say "I can't believe they can send you to jail for a year just for missing a court date!"
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Malik


Joined: 18 Dec 2011
Posts: 4413
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fretgod99 wrote:
Malik wrote:
Exactly. When the two can ever be fined/disciplined within the same (or more in this case) zone it makes it loud a clear that it doesn't specifically matter what you did, but the very notion that a player had the gaw to break A rule is more important than THE rule that was broken. That is why it is tyrannical. The fact that it is possible for a uniform violation can be punished on the same level as a play that could have unnecessarily or purposefully injured a player.
fretgod99 wrote:
J-ALL-DAY wrote:
The reason his fine was 10,000 is because this is his second uniform violation of the year.
Ah, so he wasn't actually fined $10k for wearing his socks too low, in violation of the dress code. He was fined $10k for knowingly violating the dress code after having already been fined for knowingly violating the dress code.
So, are you advocating they fine Brady more, or what?

Tyrannical - Exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way

These rules were plainly laid out by the governing body. The procedures were known to and stuck with. The players had the opportunity to voice their opinions on the matter and have signed on. That's about as far from tyrannical as you can get.


If Goodell wants to seen as The Safety First Commissioner then yes Brady should of be fined between 100-250k to make an actual stance about safety. The rules aren't about safety or code. They are about rules that exist and should be followed because they are rules.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SadLionFan00


Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 14342
Location: Michigan State University
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spiel612 wrote:
Okay, so the overheating was hyperbolic, but it's still a fair point. If a guy is too hot in a dome during a football game and it's a game he's playing in that's kind of an issue for me.

Also, the analogies here are kind of ridiculous. Wearing a tie around your head?

We're not talking about color of the socks. Color of the socks has to do with wearing the uniform of the team. The length of the socks is an issue that I don't particularly understand.

Quote:
Pushing down your socks isn't wearing "the right socks" anymore than tying them around your head would. I'm sure if your job required you to wear dress pants to work and you came in with them rolled up, they wouldn't accept that, correct?


The difference is that would look unprofessional. Did the socks look unprofessional? It violated uniform standards, but it did not look unprofessional.

If we're talking about what looks professional and what doesn't this shouldn't be a debate. It's an NFL rule and he violated it. End of story.

Again, it doesn't mean I need to agree with it. I don't see the problem with rolling socks down. He didn't wear the wrong colors of the 49ers uniform. He didn't violate any sponsor contracts.


It looked unprofessional as Hell. Everyone had their socks up to their knees, and Gore is running around with them pulled down. Just like at an office, if everyone is required to wear a tie, but one guy doesnt tie it and just has it hanging around his neck, that is unprofessional as Hell.

That is a spot on connection. You cant argue it. It is the EXACT same situation. Too hot? Tough ish. Everyone else has to have their socks to their knees, and you arent above them. Pull them up for pay the fine that the NFLPA (and by extension, Gore himself) agreed to.
_________________
Silver&Black88 wrote:
Quote:
Trestman is a great coach but Cutler is already a pouty overconfident poo flinger. What more can he do with him?
Get him to fling poo more accurately and make better decisions when flinging it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
SadLionFan00


Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 14342
Location: Michigan State University
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Malik wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Malik wrote:
Exactly. When the two can ever be fined/disciplined within the same (or more in this case) zone it makes it loud a clear that it doesn't specifically matter what you did, but the very notion that a player had the gaw to break A rule is more important than THE rule that was broken. That is why it is tyrannical. The fact that it is possible for a uniform violation can be punished on the same level as a play that could have unnecessarily or purposefully injured a player.
fretgod99 wrote:
J-ALL-DAY wrote:
The reason his fine was 10,000 is because this is his second uniform violation of the year.
Ah, so he wasn't actually fined $10k for wearing his socks too low, in violation of the dress code. He was fined $10k for knowingly violating the dress code after having already been fined for knowingly violating the dress code.
So, are you advocating they fine Brady more, or what?

Tyrannical - Exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way

These rules were plainly laid out by the governing body. The procedures were known to and stuck with. The players had the opportunity to voice their opinions on the matter and have signed on. That's about as far from tyrannical as you can get.


If Goodell wants to seen as The Safety First Commissioner then yes Brady should of be fined between 100-250k to make an actual stance about safety. The rules aren't about safety or code. They are about rules that exist and should be followed because they are rules.


Yeah, thats exactly it. Rules are rules. That why there are 4 downs, no contact on the WR beyond 5 yards, and socks have to be worn to the knees. All those are followed because they are rules. Just because the NFL says that is how it is. Put up or shut up.
_________________
Silver&Black88 wrote:
Quote:
Trestman is a great coach but Cutler is already a pouty overconfident poo flinger. What more can he do with him?
Get him to fling poo more accurately and make better decisions when flinging it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Malik


Joined: 18 Dec 2011
Posts: 4413
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SadLionFan00 wrote:
Malik wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Malik wrote:
Exactly. When the two can ever be fined/disciplined within the same (or more in this case) zone it makes it loud a clear that it doesn't specifically matter what you did, but the very notion that a player had the gaw to break A rule is more important than THE rule that was broken. That is why it is tyrannical. The fact that it is possible for a uniform violation can be punished on the same level as a play that could have unnecessarily or purposefully injured a player.
fretgod99 wrote:
J-ALL-DAY wrote:
The reason his fine was 10,000 is because this is his second uniform violation of the year.
Ah, so he wasn't actually fined $10k for wearing his socks too low, in violation of the dress code. He was fined $10k for knowingly violating the dress code after having already been fined for knowingly violating the dress code.
So, are you advocating they fine Brady more, or what?

Tyrannical - Exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way

These rules were plainly laid out by the governing body. The procedures were known to and stuck with. The players had the opportunity to voice their opinions on the matter and have signed on. That's about as far from tyrannical as you can get.


If Goodell wants to seen as The Safety First Commissioner then yes Brady should of be fined between 100-250k to make an actual stance about safety. The rules aren't about safety or code. They are about rules that exist and should be followed because they are rules.


Yeah, thats exactly it. Rules are rules. That why there are 4 downs, no contact on the WR beyond 5 yards, and socks have to be worn to the knees. All those are followed because they are rules. Just because the NFL says that is how it is. Put up or shut up.


What an asinine post. Please stop. Rules framing the game are completely distinct from sock rules. You completely miss the point. Please don't respond.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Superman(DH23)


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 19294
Location: Abdi on the sick sig
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Malik wrote:
SadLionFan00 wrote:
Malik wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Malik wrote:
Exactly. When the two can ever be fined/disciplined within the same (or more in this case) zone it makes it loud a clear that it doesn't specifically matter what you did, but the very notion that a player had the gaw to break A rule is more important than THE rule that was broken. That is why it is tyrannical. The fact that it is possible for a uniform violation can be punished on the same level as a play that could have unnecessarily or purposefully injured a player.
fretgod99 wrote:
J-ALL-DAY wrote:
The reason his fine was 10,000 is because this is his second uniform violation of the year.
Ah, so he wasn't actually fined $10k for wearing his socks too low, in violation of the dress code. He was fined $10k for knowingly violating the dress code after having already been fined for knowingly violating the dress code.
So, are you advocating they fine Brady more, or what?

Tyrannical - Exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way

These rules were plainly laid out by the governing body. The procedures were known to and stuck with. The players had the opportunity to voice their opinions on the matter and have signed on. That's about as far from tyrannical as you can get.


If Goodell wants to seen as The Safety First Commissioner then yes Brady should of be fined between 100-250k to make an actual stance about safety. The rules aren't about safety or code. They are about rules that exist and should be followed because they are rules.


Yeah, thats exactly it. Rules are rules. That why there are 4 downs, no contact on the WR beyond 5 yards, and socks have to be worn to the knees. All those are followed because they are rules. Just because the NFL says that is how it is. Put up or shut up.


What an asinine post. Please stop. Rules framing the game are completely distinct from sock rules. You completely miss the point. Please don't respond.
No, you miss the point, its a rule. You, as part of society, don't get to choose what rules you do or don't follow. If you violate a law, regardless of how silly you think it might be (say drinking before the age of 21 for example) you are subject to the consequnces. You can't go before the judge and tell him its a stupid law and expect to get off. You will receive, at least the minimum punishment as prescribed by law. If you do it again, the punishment is more severe. This is how society works. You know the rules ahead of time (he did) and you choose to break them (he did) you must suffer the consequences (he did).
_________________

2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
2014 Adopt-A-Bear Alshon Jeffery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fretgod99


Moderator
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 19306
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Malik wrote:
If Goodell wants to seen as The Safety First Commissioner then yes Brady should of be fined between 100-250k to make an actual stance about safety.
First time offender making a questionable slide that could have injured another player warrants a $100-250k fine? When the agreed upon minimum is $10k? And you're calling the sock rule tyrannical?

Quote:
The rules aren't about safety or code. They are about rules that exist and should be followed because they are rules.
The rules on dress code are about uniformity and professionalism. And yes, they need to be followed because they are the agreed upon rules. This isn't the NFL imposing their will on poor, helpless Frank Gore. He is entitled to representation (the NFLPA) and his representation signed off on this scheme.

But again, it's an arbitrary rule. Just like all the other rules. Can the NFL fine him if he's wearing the wrong color of sock or the wrong color of cleats? Unless you answer no to those questions as well, you've got no leg to stand on. Hell, even if you answer yes you've got no leg to stand on; but at least you'd be consistent.
_________________

MrDrew wrote:
Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 30043
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Superman(DH23) wrote:
Jaguarfan wrote:
Superman(DH23) wrote:
I just want to know where everyone's outrage was when Earl Bennett was fined $10K this year for wearing orange cleats.

Well, the cleats were actually noticeable.
So were his socks. The reason for both rules is quite simple. The NFL wants uniform. They want EVERYONE to have the same socks at the same length. Just like they want EVERYONE to wear white or black cleats. That's what uniform is. It's everyone dressed exactly the same. They don't want players drawing attn to themselves individually, the attn is to be on the team.


Thats it. It's really that simple. Uniform. Look up the definition. They want the players to present a neat, uniform appearance. So they set a uniform policy. And they have to enforce it. Otherwise its useless.

Why do the socks have to be worn a certain way? Because that's the policy. Why do I have to wear black scrubs at work? Would I look less professional in white scrubs? Doesnt matter. It's the policy. They sat down and decided what's acceptable and what isnt and handed it down.
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 30043
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joe_is_the_best wrote:
As simple a rule as keeping your socks up... and you can't follow it? It's not a case of an honest mistake, he purposefully skirted the rules. If there wasn't a bigger fine for breaking again a rule that you've already been fined for, what's to keep him from doing it every week? Come on guys.

Let's you got arrested for a felony and got a 1 year sentence from the judge. Then you miss your court date, and they sentence you to an extra year. Are you going to go and say "I can't believe they can send you to jail for a year just for missing a court date!"


True story.

I knew a guy while I was in the military. We met at PLDC (Sergeant school) He had already made it through Special Forces selection and was at PLDC while he waited for his Q slot (advanced special forces training) to open up.

While at PLDC, he kept getting gigged for having a spoon sticking out of his pocket. Everything else was great. Boots were shined. Uniform was pressed. But he always had that spoon sticking out of his pocket. And kept getting gigged for it. But he didnt care because he was basically under the SF umbrella. They take care of theirs. "They all walk around with a spoon sticking out of their pocket, so..."

Well, one day he got gigged for it (again) and that was it. He got dropped from PLDC for the spoon. And when his SF commander found out, he booted him out of SF. He lost his Q slot, his identifier and went back straight leg infantry. And SFAS (SF selection, think HELL) is one of the toughest courses in the army. The guy made the grade. He was ready to punch his own ticket. But they booted him out. SFs reasoning? "If you cant adapt to a simple rule like the spoon in the pocket thing, how can we trust you to adapt to some other silly rule when you are staying in a village half way around the world?"

All that was lost, over a spoon.

Of course, we know its more than the spoon, but its really a simple concept.
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BlackandBlue


Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 2102
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

J Pep 4 Step wrote:
Superman(DH23) wrote:
Jaguarfan wrote:
Superman(DH23) wrote:
I just want to know where everyone's outrage was when Earl Bennett was fined $10K this year for wearing orange cleats.

Well, the cleats were actually noticeable.
So were his socks. The reason for both rules is quite simple. The NFL wants uniform. They want EVERYONE to have the same socks at the same length. Just like they want EVERYONE to wear white or black cleats. That's what uniform is. It's everyone dressed exactly the same. They don't want players drawing attn to themselves individually, the attn is to be on the team.


Thats it. It's really that simple. Uniform. Look up the definition. They want the players to present a neat, uniform appearance. So they set a uniform policy. And they have to enforce it. Otherwise its useless.

Why do the socks have to be worn a certain way? Because that's the policy. Why do I have to wear black scrubs at work? Would I look less professional in white scrubs? Doesnt matter. It's the policy. They sat down and decided what's acceptable and what isnt and handed it down.


This would make sense, except they allow players to wear different colored gloves, no gloves at all, visors, no visors, etc.

Better yet, why do they mandate high socks? Why don't they mandate low socks? For rules to make sense there has to be a REASON for why the rule is implement the way it is, otherwise it's arbitrary, which by definition doesn't have any logic behind it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 30043
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
Superman(DH23) wrote:
Jaguarfan wrote:
Superman(DH23) wrote:
I just want to know where everyone's outrage was when Earl Bennett was fined $10K this year for wearing orange cleats.

Well, the cleats were actually noticeable.
So were his socks. The reason for both rules is quite simple. The NFL wants uniform. They want EVERYONE to have the same socks at the same length. Just like they want EVERYONE to wear white or black cleats. That's what uniform is. It's everyone dressed exactly the same. They don't want players drawing attn to themselves individually, the attn is to be on the team.


Thats it. It's really that simple. Uniform. Look up the definition. They want the players to present a neat, uniform appearance. So they set a uniform policy. And they have to enforce it. Otherwise its useless.

Why do the socks have to be worn a certain way? Because that's the policy. Why do I have to wear black scrubs at work? Would I look less professional in white scrubs? Doesnt matter. It's the policy. They sat down and decided what's acceptable and what isnt and handed it down.


This would make sense, except they allow players to wear different colored gloves, no gloves at all, visors, no visors, etc.

Better yet, why do they mandate high socks? Why don't they mandate low socks? For rules to make sense there has to be a REASON for why the rule is implement the way it is, otherwise it's arbitrary, which by definition doesn't have any logic behind it.


Why do they mandate high socks? Because it looks better in their opinion? Should there be a "better" explanation? A more "logical" explanation? Its a uniform. Throughout history uniforms have, by there very nature, been a celebration of arbitrary details. There doesnt have to be some kind of functionality behind the reasoning. "It looks better" is a perfectly valid, perfectly logical reason.

I am well aware that they allow specific modifications. And theyre very specific. The point is lowering your socks is not one of those modifications allowed. They have a uniform policy. In order to have a uniform policy, you have to sit down and make certain decisions. "Should we go with socks up or socks down? Or give players the choice?" They went with socks up. That was the decision.

If you are going to have a uniform, you have to have a uniform policy. If you are going to have a uniform policy you have to enforce it or it isnt worth the paper its written on.
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BlackandBlue


Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 2102
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

J Pep 4 Step wrote:
BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
Superman(DH23) wrote:
Jaguarfan wrote:
Superman(DH23) wrote:
I just want to know where everyone's outrage was when Earl Bennett was fined $10K this year for wearing orange cleats.

Well, the cleats were actually noticeable.
So were his socks. The reason for both rules is quite simple. The NFL wants uniform. They want EVERYONE to have the same socks at the same length. Just like they want EVERYONE to wear white or black cleats. That's what uniform is. It's everyone dressed exactly the same. They don't want players drawing attn to themselves individually, the attn is to be on the team.


Thats it. It's really that simple. Uniform. Look up the definition. They want the players to present a neat, uniform appearance. So they set a uniform policy. And they have to enforce it. Otherwise its useless.

Why do the socks have to be worn a certain way? Because that's the policy. Why do I have to wear black scrubs at work? Would I look less professional in white scrubs? Doesnt matter. It's the policy. They sat down and decided what's acceptable and what isnt and handed it down.


This would make sense, except they allow players to wear different colored gloves, no gloves at all, visors, no visors, etc.

Better yet, why do they mandate high socks? Why don't they mandate low socks? For rules to make sense there has to be a REASON for why the rule is implement the way it is, otherwise it's arbitrary, which by definition doesn't have any logic behind it.


Why do they mandate high socks? Because it looks better in their opinion? Should there be a "better" explanation? A more "logical" explanation? Its a uniform. Throughout history uniforms have, by there very nature, been a celebration of arbitrary details. There doesnt have to be some kind of functionality behind the reasoning. "It looks better" is a perfectly valid, perfectly logical reason.

I am well aware that they allow specific modifications. And theyre very specific. The point is lowering your socks is not one of those modifications allowed. They have a uniform policy. In order to have a uniform policy, you have to sit down and make certain decisions. "Should we go with socks up or socks down? Or give players the choice?" They went with socks up. That was the decision.

If you are going to have a uniform, you have to have a uniform policy. If you are going to have a uniform policy you have to enforce it or it isnt worth the paper its written on.


So you agree that the rule is totally arbitrary. We're on the same page here. But making arbitrary rules that impede with functionality (as Gore says it does) is the definition of illogical.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 30043
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
Superman(DH23) wrote:
Jaguarfan wrote:
Superman(DH23) wrote:
I just want to know where everyone's outrage was when Earl Bennett was fined $10K this year for wearing orange cleats.

Well, the cleats were actually noticeable.
So were his socks. The reason for both rules is quite simple. The NFL wants uniform. They want EVERYONE to have the same socks at the same length. Just like they want EVERYONE to wear white or black cleats. That's what uniform is. It's everyone dressed exactly the same. They don't want players drawing attn to themselves individually, the attn is to be on the team.


Thats it. It's really that simple. Uniform. Look up the definition. They want the players to present a neat, uniform appearance. So they set a uniform policy. And they have to enforce it. Otherwise its useless.

Why do the socks have to be worn a certain way? Because that's the policy. Why do I have to wear black scrubs at work? Would I look less professional in white scrubs? Doesnt matter. It's the policy. They sat down and decided what's acceptable and what isnt and handed it down.


This would make sense, except they allow players to wear different colored gloves, no gloves at all, visors, no visors, etc.

Better yet, why do they mandate high socks? Why don't they mandate low socks? For rules to make sense there has to be a REASON for why the rule is implement the way it is, otherwise it's arbitrary, which by definition doesn't have any logic behind it.


Why do they mandate high socks? Because it looks better in their opinion? Should there be a "better" explanation? A more "logical" explanation? Its a uniform. Throughout history uniforms have, by there very nature, been a celebration of arbitrary details. There doesnt have to be some kind of functionality behind the reasoning. "It looks better" is a perfectly valid, perfectly logical reason.

I am well aware that they allow specific modifications. And theyre very specific. The point is lowering your socks is not one of those modifications allowed. They have a uniform policy. In order to have a uniform policy, you have to sit down and make certain decisions. "Should we go with socks up or socks down? Or give players the choice?" They went with socks up. That was the decision.

If you are going to have a uniform, you have to have a uniform policy. If you are going to have a uniform policy you have to enforce it or it isnt worth the paper its written on.


So you agree that the rule is totally arbitrary. We're on the same page here. But making arbitrary rules that impede with functionality (as Gore says it does) is the definition of illogical.


What is the purpose of a football uniform? What is its "function?"

What "functionality" is being impeded?
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Superman(DH23)


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 19294
Location: Abdi on the sick sig
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
Superman(DH23) wrote:
Jaguarfan wrote:
Superman(DH23) wrote:
I just want to know where everyone's outrage was when Earl Bennett was fined $10K this year for wearing orange cleats.

Well, the cleats were actually noticeable.
So were his socks. The reason for both rules is quite simple. The NFL wants uniform. They want EVERYONE to have the same socks at the same length. Just like they want EVERYONE to wear white or black cleats. That's what uniform is. It's everyone dressed exactly the same. They don't want players drawing attn to themselves individually, the attn is to be on the team.


Thats it. It's really that simple. Uniform. Look up the definition. They want the players to present a neat, uniform appearance. So they set a uniform policy. And they have to enforce it. Otherwise its useless.

Why do the socks have to be worn a certain way? Because that's the policy. Why do I have to wear black scrubs at work? Would I look less professional in white scrubs? Doesnt matter. It's the policy. They sat down and decided what's acceptable and what isnt and handed it down.


This would make sense, except they allow players to wear different colored gloves, no gloves at all, visors, no visors, etc.

Better yet, why do they mandate high socks? Why don't they mandate low socks? For rules to make sense there has to be a REASON for why the rule is implement the way it is, otherwise it's arbitrary, which by definition doesn't have any logic behind it.


Why do they mandate high socks? Because it looks better in their opinion? Should there be a "better" explanation? A more "logical" explanation? Its a uniform. Throughout history uniforms have, by there very nature, been a celebration of arbitrary details. There doesnt have to be some kind of functionality behind the reasoning. "It looks better" is a perfectly valid, perfectly logical reason.

I am well aware that they allow specific modifications. And theyre very specific. The point is lowering your socks is not one of those modifications allowed. They have a uniform policy. In order to have a uniform policy, you have to sit down and make certain decisions. "Should we go with socks up or socks down? Or give players the choice?" They went with socks up. That was the decision.

If you are going to have a uniform, you have to have a uniform policy. If you are going to have a uniform policy you have to enforce it or it isnt worth the paper its written on.


So you agree that the rule is totally arbitrary. We're on the same page here. But making arbitrary rules that impede with functionality (as Gore says it does) is the definition of illogical.
Sure it's arbitrary, just like it's arbitrary in the military that rank on a collar be 1" up from the corner exact and centered. It's arbitrary that boots must have an even brush shine (funny thing about spit shined toes and heels, that's out of regulation). Signature on memo must be exactly 5 spaces below the closing. Regulations are arbitrary all the time. We can't choose which rules we follow and which rules we don't.

What's really funny is people act like Gore is being hit harder than he would in the real world. If you don't abide by your employers dress code what happens to you? You're sent home w/o pay. Gore didn't even have 1/4 of his paycheck w/h.
_________________

2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
2014 Adopt-A-Bear Alshon Jeffery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 9 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group