The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Goodell never ceases to amaze me. For all the hard nosed tactics he uses against the thugs, he pulls some crap like this and fines Ryan Clark.

...Clark revealed that he was fined $5,000 by the NFL for wearing eye black with the No. 21 etched into it Sunday.

Even if it wasn't Sean's #, I'd be disgusted by this cheap shot.

I'd love nothing more than to see each fan donate $1 to players who get fined for bullcrap. If everyone at the stadium donated one dollar to pay for these fines to SPITE the NFL, it'd make my day. I'd contribute $5.

The NFL has been notorious on minor uniform issues, and face paint has always been scrutinized. There was a Vikings DE or DT (Randall?) who used to go crazy with the face paint and consistently pay fines.

http://post-gazette.com/pg/08304/923970-66.stm

Quick hits

Safety Ryan Clark revealed that he was fined $5,000 by the NFL for wearing eye black with the No. 21 etched into it Sunday. Clark said he did it to honor his late Redskins teammate Sean Taylor, who was murdered in his Florida home last year. Clark, who wears No. 25, wears a No. 21 practice jersey in honor of Taylor. Clark said he will continue to wear the eye black with "21" in it. ... Add linebacker LaMarr Woodley (calf) to the injury list. He did not practice yesterday, and neither did Marvel Smith (back spasms) nor nose tackle Casey Hampton (toe) among others.

At the top of the article is more on Big Ben complaining about the Redskins cheerleaders

That's so ridiculous! How is eye-black considered part of the uniform? If it was Ryan's own jersey number, would it still be illegal?

JSPB22 wrote:http://thehogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28500

Please keep comments and discussion to the thread JSPB22 linked to. This belongs in the Around the League Forum.

Thanks.

merged

The NFL has given out some pretty stupid fines lately, but this is just completely ridiculous. A guy cant even write on his eye paint anymore. Is there any way Clark can appeal this?

If that was a Patriots player he wouldn't have done anything. Roger hasn't done anything but make the league worse. He took away end zone dances which is fun to watch, his hard nosed tactics obviously haven't worked based on off the field trouble before he was there compared to now. What I am actually really pissed about is that he is not giving those old guys that played in the 50's medical treatment that they need because of old football injuries. I don't care what the contract and other stuff says the NFL should give them there treatment because there the reason the NFL is big today, and there the reason he has his job. If it wasn't for those old players he wouldn't have a job, well at least this job. Now he won't let players honor there dead friends and former teammates. What a piece of garbage.

Ryan still bleeds B&G last year on his bye week he was at FedEx watching our game!!

MDSKINSFAN wrote:The NFL has given out some pretty stupid fines lately, but this is just completely ridiculous. A guy cant even write on his eye paint anymore. Is there any way Clark can appeal this?

When were they allowed to do things like write on their eye paint?

Irn-Bru wrote:

MDSKINSFAN wrote:The NFL has given out some pretty stupid fines lately, but this is just completely ridiculous. A guy cant even write on his eye paint anymore. Is there any way Clark can appeal this?

When were they allowed to do things like write on their eye paint?

shockey did it last year after sean died. I can think of that right now but the point is that this is a dumb fine. Dont fine someone that plays clean on the field and is out of trouble off of it for writing on eye paint.

I understand that rules are rules and that one exception often paves the way for others, but I'm hard-pressed to see how personalizing eyeblack (with anything short of profanity or an unauthorized ad) harms the game in any way....

absinthe1023 wrote:I understand that rules are rules and that one exception often paves the way for others, but I'm hard-pressed to see how personalizing eyeblack (with anything short of profanity or an unauthorized ad) harms the game in any way....

I agree. You do have to draw the line somewhere, but the NFL is pretty strict.

Irn-Bru wrote:

MDSKINSFAN wrote:The NFL has given out some pretty stupid fines lately, but this is just completely ridiculous. A guy cant even write on his eye paint anymore. Is there any way Clark can appeal this?

When were they allowed to do things like write on their eye paint?

I think the better question would be when did it become illegal? Or better yet, when did eye-black become part of the uniform? If it is part of the uniform, why aren't all players required to wear it?

I remember a couple of years ago a player being fined because he wore different shoes from his teammates. The team had to decide before the season what footwear they would all be using, and any variation resulted in a fine. Now, CP and several other players wear those black shoes with the yellow accents, but not everyone on the team wears those. I'm always thinking I see a penalty flag when those shoes make a flash appearance under a pile. And yesterday, watching NFC Playbook on the NFLN, there was a player wearing neon green shoes. Shoes are so much more part of the uniform than eye-black in my opinion. I think Ryan should make a very public stink about this fine. He should definitely appeal the ruling.

I think the better question would be when did it become illegal?

For a full understanding, one must really go back to the tweaking of Pete Rozelle's nose by Jim McMahon, and his famous headband(s)...

I understand why people look at it like it's silly, but on the other hand let's be real. The players are going to push the limits CONSTANTLY and the NFL is going to be in the position of "well, you allowed this, why not that...?" I understand why since they ARE going to have to fight the battle somewhere they decided to draw the line as strictly as they did as the most defensible position. And I'm not really arguing for that so much as saying I understand it. Frankly it doesn't bother me either. Can you imagine if they were allowed to wear whatever they want? It would be a freak show and the teams couldn't tell each other apart. I'm not saying the number on the black eye does that, I'm just saying again no matter where the NFL draws the line the players will cross it.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I understand why people look at it like it's silly, but on the other hand let's be real. The players are going to push the limits CONSTANTLY and the NFL is going to be in the position of "well, you allowed this, why not that...?" I understand why since they ARE going to have to fight the battle somewhere they decided to draw the line as strictly as they did as the most defensible position. And I'm not really arguing for that so much as saying I understand it. Frankly it doesn't bother me either. Can you imagine if they were allowed to wear whatever they want? It would be a freak show and the teams couldn't tell each other apart. I'm not saying the number on the black eye does that, I'm just saying again no matter where the NFL draws the line the players will cross it.

Ultimately, it's all about licensing and endorsements... it always gets around to money, I believe. It's not so much about "uniform standards" as it is about "NFL Sanctioned uniform standards", which you may read as... give us money, and we'll talk. Players do not have that authority, and will not be given that authority. Any bending of the rules, such as allowing a player to spontaineously put 21 on his eye black, undermines the NFL's authority, and risks other unauthorized endorsements to sneak in.

Jim McMahon butted up against this many years ago.

Countertrey wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I understand why people look at it like it's silly, but on the other hand let's be real. The players are going to push the limits CONSTANTLY and the NFL is going to be in the position of "well, you allowed this, why not that...?" I understand why since they ARE going to have to fight the battle somewhere they decided to draw the line as strictly as they did as the most defensible position. And I'm not really arguing for that so much as saying I understand it. Frankly it doesn't bother me either. Can you imagine if they were allowed to wear whatever they want? It would be a freak show and the teams couldn't tell each other apart. I'm not saying the number on the black eye does that, I'm just saying again no matter where the NFL draws the line the players will cross it.

Ultimately, it's all about licensing and endorsements... it always gets around to money, I believe. It's not so much about "uniform standards" as it is about "NFL Sanctioned uniform standards", which you may read as... give us money, and we'll talk. Players do not have that authority, and will not be given that authority. Any bending of the rules, such as allowing a player to spontaineously put 21 on his eye black, undermines the NFL's authority, and risks other unauthorized endorsements to sneak in.

Jim McMahon butted up against this many years ago.

I definitely agree with you endorsements are a major factor, quite possibly the largest factor. But I can't agree if you're saying it's the only factor. Even without endorsements these are a bunch of rich entertainers who want "personalization" which the NFL could easily see quickly getting out of hand when they're doing it on the field.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I understand why people look at it like it's silly, but on the other hand let's be real. The players are going to push the limits CONSTANTLY and the NFL is going to be in the position of "well, you allowed this, why not that...?" I understand why since they ARE going to have to fight the battle somewhere they decided to draw the line as strictly as they did as the most defensible position. And I'm not really arguing for that so much as saying I understand it. Frankly it doesn't bother me either. Can you imagine if they were allowed to wear whatever they want? It would be a freak show and the teams couldn't tell each other apart. I'm not saying the number on the black eye does that, I'm just saying again no matter where the NFL draws the line the players will cross it.

Ultimately, it's all about licensing and endorsements... it always gets around to money, I believe. It's not so much about "uniform standards" as it is about "NFL Sanctioned uniform standards", which you may read as... give us money, and we'll talk. Players do not have that authority, and will not be given that authority. Any bending of the rules, such as allowing a player to spontaineously put 21 on his eye black, undermines the NFL's authority, and risks other unauthorized endorsements to sneak in.

Jim McMahon butted up against this many years ago.

I definitely agree with you endorsements are a major factor, quite possibly the largest factor. But I can't agree if you're saying it's the only factor. Even without endorsements these are a bunch of rich entertainers who want "personalization" which the NFL could easily see quickly getting out of hand when they're doing it on the field.

Thiis a great point about NFL sanctioned. I remember reading that someone (I think Reebok) has the exclusive license for sideline gear and the coach (his name escapes me) had to petition the NFL to be able to wear a suit on the sideline due to Reebok not having suits.

VetSkinsFan wrote:Thiis a great point about NFL sanctioned. I remember reading that someone (I think Reebok) has the exclusive license for sideline gear and the coach (his name escapes me) had to petition the NFL to be able to wear a suit on the sideline due to Reebok not having suits.

Was it Mike Nolan?

MDSKINSFAN wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Thiis a great point about NFL sanctioned. I remember reading that someone (I think Reebok) has the exclusive license for sideline gear and the coach (his name escapes me) had to petition the NFL to be able to wear a suit on the sideline due to Reebok not having suits.

Was it Mike Nolan?

I actually believe it was!

MDSKINSFAN wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Thiis a great point about NFL sanctioned. I remember reading that someone (I think Reebok) has the exclusive license for sideline gear and the coach (his name escapes me) had to petition the NFL to be able to wear a suit on the sideline due to Reebok not having suits.

Was it Mike Nolan?

yes.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

MDSKINSFAN wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Thiis a great point about NFL sanctioned. I remember reading that someone (I think Reebok) has the exclusive license for sideline gear and the coach (his name escapes me) had to petition the NFL to be able to wear a suit on the sideline due to Reebok not having suits.

Was it Mike Nolan?

yes.

O I never heard about that but it doesnt surprise me at all.