GTSaxophone
Jolly Good Fellow
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,740
I'd like to agree, but I've always wondered this: the dreads cover up the players' nameplates, and I'm pretty surprised the league would allow this, as it's not good for the fans. This isn't an issue in college because the NCAA doesn't require nameplates, but I think(?) the NFL does.
This was proposed by the NFL, but rejected thanks to somewhat rational minds. Everyone who wants there to be a rule against dreadlocks or long hair needs to get over themselves. It's not that serious. As far as getting pulled down by it, I agree with the people who pointed out the fact that you could say the same thing about jerseys, jewelery, hand-warmers, etc. Again, it's not a big deal. What happened in that game was an unfortunate occurrence, but it is far from the norm. Only if dreads become a consistent danger to players should a rule be CONSIDERED.
Also, if a player is Rastafarian, he can legitimately claim religious expression for having dreadlocks. I also think I remember our LB Corps or some other corp on our defense all having dreads as a symbol of unity. Could be wrong on that one, though.