CFL Uniforms

I have seen more than 8 games so far this season. I even went to the CFL rulebook to find out the official rules for uniforms. There is no rule for tucking in the jersey anymore. I can understand very large players having their jersey popping out but there are smaller players not even making an attempt to tuck them in . In no way is this even close to professional looking. Leading the pack are a dozen players from the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. They look like slobs

I agree that the CFL looks considerably less professional today, when judged by uniforms, than it once did. Not only the out jerseys, but there were also rules about uniformity in the wearing of socks, the length of pants, any bare leg showing, the colour of anything, other than the basic uniform, showing and the players' names on their backs. Prior to each game, the officials used to look for uniform violations during team warm-ups and warn offending players that they would be ineligible to participate in the game until the violation was corrected. I'm pleased to see, this year, that Montreal has put a halt to Arland Bruce's "III," but notice that Winnipeg is still allowing the also totally incorrect use of "JR" by Sears and Turner. I expect we're in the minority on this, Football294, but I thought someone should step up and support your comment.

Was a new rule book issued this year? If so, could you post a link to it? The link on the CFL web site is for the 2011 version, and it still has the rule about tucking in the jersey - Rule 1, Section 10, Article 7.

Did I read that grabbing protruding locks of hair was a non punishable tactic?

It's considered part of the body, and therefore fair game. Players can always cut them off or tuck them into a cap if they find it provides too easy a handle for defenders. On the other hand, all that hair flying in a spin move might provide enough of a distraction that the defender misses the tackle.

Spin move or not tackler should not be looking at the head. A coach told me along time ago 'it doesn't matter what the head and shoulders are doing, where the jock strap goes so goes the runner. Aim your shoulder there, and wrap up'.

I was told the hips, but yeah, it comes down to the same thing. The hair flying shouldn't affect the defender, but I bet it does to some extent.

(Then there was that one player back in high school who took ballet lessons to help him with his footwork. The guy learned to sprint flat out straight sideways. One of the weirdest thing I've ever seen.)

Sorry, I got distracted. What I wanted to bring up was a defender chasing a ball carrier from behind, grabbing the hair and bringing the carrier down. Would the refs consider this a 'horse collar'? Would a handful of hair change their mind, or would it have to be a dreadlock c/w bloody root?

Its legal to pull him down by the hair so it shouldn't be a flag.

Would not be considered a horse collar tackle. A handful of hair would be no different than a handful of jersey. If the tackler's actions beyond just grabbing the hair, in any way, appeared to be a deliberate attempt to injure or cause extra pain that would call for an unnecessary roughness flag.

Couldn't believe that hair pulling is not a penalty. Googled around and found this:

[url=] ... 20132.html[/url]

After reading the article, I agree with the writer's position....the rules should be changed to make it a penalty.

don't wanna be pulled down by your hair? dont grow it down past your neck.. makes perfect sense, otherwise there's an unfair advantage to players who grow their hair long.


[quote="ottawacat" If the tackler's actions beyond just grabbing the hair, in any way, appeared to be a deliberate attempt to injure or cause extra pain that would call for an unnecessary roughness flag.
makes sense after the whistle, not before.

What advantage does long hair provide to a football player? If anything, under the current rules, I see it as a disadvantage to the long locked tacklee and an advantage to the pursuing tackler.

because it covers their jersey, which is a legitimate, albiet last resort area to tackle. if you cannot tackle someone because their hair is in the way, it is an unfair advantage.

players who choose to let their hair grow past their shoulders run that risk.... or they can tuck it in... that's an option too

Except that it covers that part of the jersey which, if you grab, you're likely to get a horsecollar penalty. So it's giving the tackler a way to avoid that penalty.
Maybe the long hair is now a disadvantage, where it used to be an advantage before the horsecollar penalty existed.

i beleive the official ruling is that if it covers the jersey it becomes part of the uniform and you run the risk of being tackled by it.

it's a personal choice, live with it or cut it. no one is asking you to give the other team another spot to grab on to, that's the player's call.

Think of it from another perspective, how many facemask penalties are intentional? Not many. But the rule remains severe to actively discourage a player from putting their hands in a place that could be dangerous.
Now that sentence may lead you to think I was in favour of a penalty but quite the opposite.

If there is a penalty for grabbing hair, which could extend well down the lower back, then defenders are now actively avoiding grabbing an area of the offender, ie adjusting the mechanics of their tackle, just as they would a face mask. That is an advantage to the offender.

In addition, there is now potential for a penalty, presumably 15 yards and a first down, that simply doesn't exist for most other players. If its the end of the game, 3rd down, and a player gets pulled down by his dreads that extend down to his knees, provoking a penalty, that has proven to be a big advantage to the offense, has it not?

Simply put, you cannot apply different rules to different players or you're giving somebody an unfair advantage, no matter how you look at it.

This leaves 3 fair solutions
A) make everybody grow long hair
B) make everybody cut their hair or tuck it into their helmet
C) Recognize that the offender has the power to cut or tuck in their hair, so the onus is on them to do so. If they choose not to do so, they assume the risk of injury and any competitive disadvantages.

thank you for saying what i was too lazy to type out. :thup:

Watching their game right now, and no, they haven't.