| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fretgod99
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 17900
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| BlackandBlue wrote: | | 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. |
It's arbitrary just like having 100 yard field is arbitrary. It doesn't impede functionality in the slightest. And the reason that different gloves and visors are allowed is because they have different functions and players have different needs. There aren't different needs for socks, except for barefoot kickers (which is why they have an exception).
It's really not as big of a deal as it's being made out to be. It's not draconian. It's not tyrannical. It's a part of a dress code, just like every other dress code in sports. Just like every other dress code in every other walk of life with a dress code. A line has to be drawn somewhere and they've chosen to draw it at keeping them pulled up.
But if you've got a good reason to distinguish this case from this one:
| fretgod99 wrote: | | What if he was wearing the correct socks, but pulled them down and instead of having nothing under them, had other tights or socks under them? What if they're a completely different color than what is allowed. Is it still ok to fine him in that instance? I mean, after all, he is wearing the correct socks, he just has them pulled down. If it's ok to fine him in this hypothetical, why not in the present case? Is it because he had nothing on under his uniform socks instead of a separate set of differently colored socks? |
I'm all ears.
A person can be fined for wearing the wrong color socks, but not for improperly wearing the right socks? Isn't that just as arbitrary?
_________________
| MrDrew wrote: | | Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BlackandBlue
Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 1097
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| J Pep 4 Step wrote: | | 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? |
Gore mentioned the heat in the dome in his defense of his actions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fretgod99
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 17900
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BlackandBlue wrote: | | Gore mentioned the heat in the dome in his defense of his actions. |
Gore also said it wasn't a big deal, he was wrong not to pull his socks up, and will make sure it doesn't happen again.
_________________
| MrDrew wrote: | | Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BlackandBlue
Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 1097
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Superman(DH23) wrote: | | 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. |
Actually, you can. Gore did.
And no one's claiming Gore's being hit hard. People are pointing out that making up rules just for the heck of it is bad practice, regardless of how long it's been going on by different organizations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canadaluvsdalla
Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Posts: 3066
Location: I state my opinion. You Listen. I won't change my stance.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
For petes sake. It's pulling down a mans sock NFL.
We can't have paragraph discussions about this. Sock. Down. Thats it.
In my opinion. Dumb . Stupid. But hey it's a opinion.
_________________
| Dez Bryant on 2000 Yard Season wrote: | | It's only going to get better, to be honest. I still have a lot to give. I feel like nobody's seen anything. Nothing. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BlackandBlue
Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 1097
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| fretgod99 wrote: | | BlackandBlue wrote: | | 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. |
It's arbitrary just like having 100 yard field is arbitrary. It doesn't impede functionality in the slightest. And the reason that different gloves and visors are allowed is because they have different functions and players have different needs. There aren't different needs for socks, except for barefoot kickers (which is why they have an exception).
It's really not as big of a deal as it's being made out to be. It's not draconian. It's not tyrannical. It's a part of a dress code, just like every other dress code in sports. Just like every other dress code in every other walk of life with a dress code. A line has to be drawn somewhere and they've chosen to draw it at keeping them pulled up.
But if you've got a good reason to distinguish this case from this one:
| fretgod99 wrote: | | What if he was wearing the correct socks, but pulled them down and instead of having nothing under them, had other tights or socks under them? What if they're a completely different color than what is allowed. Is it still ok to fine him in that instance? I mean, after all, he is wearing the correct socks, he just has them pulled down. If it's ok to fine him in this hypothetical, why not in the present case? Is it because he had nothing on under his uniform socks instead of a separate set of differently colored socks? |
I'm all ears.
A person can be fined for wearing the wrong color socks, but not for improperly wearing the right socks? Isn't that just as arbitrary? |
That's the thing though: Rules change. They change all the time. The kick off line was arbitrary too. The league decided perhaps it'd better if they changed the arbitrary point at which teams kicked off, so they changed it.
Keeping a rule in place and then never ever ever EVER questioning ebcause it's been around forever and cus the NFL said so isn't commendable behavior, it's stubborness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Superman(DH23)
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 16524
Location: Abdi on the sick sig
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BlackandBlue wrote: |
Actually, you can. Gore did.
And no one's claiming Gore's being hit hard. People are pointing out that making up rules just for the heck of it is bad practice, regardless of how long it's been going on by different organizations. |
Actually can't, hence why he was fined $10K.
_________________
| OneBadCat wrote: | | Ahah Okay first of all Gamble was lost to IR this year but when healthy he proved to be 2nd only to Revis last season. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J Pep 4 Step
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 25389
Location: Greenvillain, NC
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BlackandBlue wrote: | | J Pep 4 Step wrote: | | 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? |
Gore mentioned the heat in the dome in his defense of his actions. |
The socks werent impeding his actions in the least. He was hot. They were impeding his comfort.
If you are going to make the argument that uniform policy shouldnt trump comfort I dont know what to tell you. Uniforms generally arent comfortable. If that makes them illogical to you, so be it.
_________________
| jrry32 wrote: | | Faulk's argument style is reminiscent of Mark Sanchez's passing style. Inconsistent as hell and all over the place. I'm just waiting for him to run into iPwn's butt and fumble. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J Pep 4 Step
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 25389
Location: Greenvillain, NC
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BlackandBlue wrote: | | Superman(DH23) wrote: | | 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. |
Actually, you can. Gore did.
And no one's claiming Gore's being hit hard. People are pointing out that making up rules just for the heck of it is bad practice, regardless of how long it's been going on by different organizations. |
Uniform policy is a bad practice? How so?
_________________
| jrry32 wrote: | | Faulk's argument style is reminiscent of Mark Sanchez's passing style. Inconsistent as hell and all over the place. I'm just waiting for him to run into iPwn's butt and fumble. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J Pep 4 Step
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 25389
Location: Greenvillain, NC
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Superman(DH23) wrote: | | BlackandBlue wrote: |
Actually, you can. Gore did.
And no one's claiming Gore's being hit hard. People are pointing out that making up rules just for the heck of it is bad practice, regardless of how long it's been going on by different organizations. |
Actually can't, hence why he was fined $10K. |
Let me head this off before it muddies the water.
You can choose what rules to ignore and which ones not to. You just have to pay the consequences.
Gore chose to break a rule. Gore paid the consequences.
_________________
| jrry32 wrote: | | Faulk's argument style is reminiscent of Mark Sanchez's passing style. Inconsistent as hell and all over the place. I'm just waiting for him to run into iPwn's butt and fumble. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J Pep 4 Step
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 25389
Location: Greenvillain, NC
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BlackandBlue wrote: | | fretgod99 wrote: | | BlackandBlue wrote: | | 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. |
It's arbitrary just like having 100 yard field is arbitrary. It doesn't impede functionality in the slightest. And the reason that different gloves and visors are allowed is because they have different functions and players have different needs. There aren't different needs for socks, except for barefoot kickers (which is why they have an exception).
It's really not as big of a deal as it's being made out to be. It's not draconian. It's not tyrannical. It's a part of a dress code, just like every other dress code in sports. Just like every other dress code in every other walk of life with a dress code. A line has to be drawn somewhere and they've chosen to draw it at keeping them pulled up.
But if you've got a good reason to distinguish this case from this one:
| fretgod99 wrote: | | What if he was wearing the correct socks, but pulled them down and instead of having nothing under them, had other tights or socks under them? What if they're a completely different color than what is allowed. Is it still ok to fine him in that instance? I mean, after all, he is wearing the correct socks, he just has them pulled down. If it's ok to fine him in this hypothetical, why not in the present case? Is it because he had nothing on under his uniform socks instead of a separate set of differently colored socks? |
I'm all ears.
A person can be fined for wearing the wrong color socks, but not for improperly wearing the right socks? Isn't that just as arbitrary? |
That's the thing though: Rules change. They change all the time. The kick off line was arbitrary too. The league decided perhaps it'd better if they changed the arbitrary point at which teams kicked off, so they changed it.
Keeping a rule in place and then never ever ever EVER questioning ebcause it's been around forever and cus the NFL said so isn't commendable behavior, it's stubborness. |
Nobody is suggesting the rule should be set in stone. People are saying it isnt unfair. People are saying that is how uniform policies work. And if you are going to accept a job with a uniform policy, and you are going to deliberately break one of it's rules, it isnt unfair that you pay the consequences.
People are also saying the "socks up" rule isnt any more logical or illogical than about 1,000 other uniform rules (talk to me about "socks down" in Lambeau in January), most of which are made with asthetics, not functionality, in mind.
_________________
| jrry32 wrote: | | Faulk's argument style is reminiscent of Mark Sanchez's passing style. Inconsistent as hell and all over the place. I'm just waiting for him to run into iPwn's butt and fumble. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J Pep 4 Step
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 25389
Location: Greenvillain, NC
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BlackandBlue wrote: | | Superman(DH23) wrote: | | 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. |
Actually, you can. Gore did.
And no one's claiming Gore's being hit hard. People are pointing out that making up rules just for the heck of it is bad practice, regardless of how long it's been going on by different organizations. |
And I want to make this crystal clear: Making up a uniform policy is, by its nature, making up rules just for the heck of it. Are you saying there should be no uniform policies?
_________________
| jrry32 wrote: | | Faulk's argument style is reminiscent of Mark Sanchez's passing style. Inconsistent as hell and all over the place. I'm just waiting for him to run into iPwn's butt and fumble. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fretgod99
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 17900
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BlackandBlue wrote: | That's the thing though: Rules change. They change all the time. The kick off line was arbitrary too. The league decided perhaps it'd better if they changed the arbitrary point at which teams kicked off, so they changed it.
Keeping a rule in place and then never ever ever EVER questioning ebcause it's been around forever and cus the NFL said so isn't commendable behavior, it's stubborness. |
And ... what? Replacing one arbitrary rule with another equally arbitrary rule is commendable? Replacing an arbitrary rule just for the sake of because is equally arbitrary.
That's the point you're missing. "This rule is stupid, so I shouldn't have to follow it." Because, why exactly? Why is this rule any less ridiculous than any of the other uniform rules? Why restrict shoe colors? Why disallow messages on eye black? Why are any of these things less arbitrary or objectionable?
And again, why can they fine for wearing the wrong socks but not for wearing the right socks the wrong way?
_________________
| MrDrew wrote: | | Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sp6488
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 6258
Location: MD
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BlackandBlue wrote: | | fretgod99 wrote: | | BlackandBlue wrote: | | 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. |
It's arbitrary just like having 100 yard field is arbitrary. It doesn't impede functionality in the slightest. And the reason that different gloves and visors are allowed is because they have different functions and players have different needs. There aren't different needs for socks, except for barefoot kickers (which is why they have an exception).
It's really not as big of a deal as it's being made out to be. It's not draconian. It's not tyrannical. It's a part of a dress code, just like every other dress code in sports. Just like every other dress code in every other walk of life with a dress code. A line has to be drawn somewhere and they've chosen to draw it at keeping them pulled up.
But if you've got a good reason to distinguish this case from this one:
| fretgod99 wrote: | | What if he was wearing the correct socks, but pulled them down and instead of having nothing under them, had other tights or socks under them? What if they're a completely different color than what is allowed. Is it still ok to fine him in that instance? I mean, after all, he is wearing the correct socks, he just has them pulled down. If it's ok to fine him in this hypothetical, why not in the present case? Is it because he had nothing on under his uniform socks instead of a separate set of differently colored socks? |
I'm all ears.
A person can be fined for wearing the wrong color socks, but not for improperly wearing the right socks? Isn't that just as arbitrary? |
That's the thing though: Rules change. They change all the time. The kick off line was arbitrary too. The league decided perhaps it'd better if they changed the arbitrary point at which teams kicked off, so they changed it.
Keeping a rule in place and then never ever ever EVER questioning ebcause it's been around forever and cus the NFL said so isn't commendable behavior, it's stubborness. |
Those changes didn't happen mid-game, though, did they? Would you encourage people to just kickoff from their own decided kickoff line? The bears attempted to ignore the latest modification to the kickoff rule and the NFL told them to stop. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/bears-refuse-to-bend-to-new-kickoff-rule-told-by-league-to-stop-mid-game?urn=nfl,wp5084
The kickoff point was changed during the offseason when all relevant parties could sit down and discuss it. Similarly, if the sock rule is so stupid, then players should address it in the offseason, not decide to be insubordinate during the middle of a game. Until that point, they need to suck it up and comply.
_________________
| Tzimisce wrote: | I'm sorry you're drowning in a sea of delusion.
I won't be sorry when the Ravens finish 8-8. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
panattack86
Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 339
Location: Rockford,IL
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
So bradys ty cobb slide is fined the same amount as socks being to low. Brady should have been fined a lot more. Just my opinion
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
