Player Benched For Refusing to Cut Hair

 

There is no such rule in Major League Baseball. Players don't have to tuck their shirts in. 

 

From MLB:

 

1.11
(a) (1) All players on a team shall wear uniforms identical in color, trim and style, and all players uniforms shall include minimal sixinch numbers on their backs. (2) Any part of an undershirt exposed to view shall be of a uniform solid color for all players on a team. Any player other than the pitcher may have numbers, letters, insignia attached to the sleeve of the undershirt. (3) No player whose uniform does not conform to that of his teammates shall be permitted to participate in a game.
(b) A league may provide that (1) each team shall wear a distinctive uniform at all times, or (2) that each team shall have two sets of uniforms, white for home games and a different color for road games.
(c) (1) Sleeve lengths may vary for individual players, but the sleeves of each individual player shall be approximately the same length. (2) No player shall wear ragged, frayed or slit sleeves.
(d) No player shall attach to his uniform tape or other material of a different color from his uniform.
(e) No part of the uniform shall include a pattern that imitates or suggests the shape of a baseball.
(f) Glass buttons and polished metal shall not be used on a uniform.
(g) No player shall attach anything to the heel or toe of his shoe other than the ordinary shoe plate or toe plate. Shoes with pointed spikes similar to golf or track shoes shall not be worn.
(h) No part of the uniform shall include patches or designs relating to commercial advertisements.
(i) A league may provide that the uniforms of its member teams include the names of its players on their backs. Any name other than the last name of the player must be approved by the League President. If adopted, all uniforms for a team must have the names of its players.

 

 

Is that a team sport now?  Oh yeah, they way my wife backseat drives, I guess it could be considered that.  

1. The first part is just trivia.I want to know what purpose does the rule serve?

 

2. The way jerseys are made, i'd say that if they aren't tucked in it does affect performance with them flopping around.

 

3. Why make assumptions for things you have no way of knowing?

I think all those rules are stupid.  Not one of them have anything to do with performance on the field.  A player can play just as well with shorts and a t-shirt.  Why should they have to wear a uniform?  Just another strict set of rules made up by egotistical executives.  I'll bet if a MLB player tried to step on the field with shorts instead of baseball pants, they would be told they weren't going to play until they put on the pants they were supposed to wear.  Yet whether he did or not, he would still be a good baseball player.  

 

 

What's it called when your sarcasm is actually the truth? Anyone know?

Actually, there’s a utilitarian basis for a number of those rules, other than conformity.  (e) and (f) could have an influence on performance when you consider the effect of reflected light in a fielder or batter’s eyes, or a baseball patch mistaken for the actual ball for even a split second by a fielder or umpire.  (g) is safety concern and (h) is to ensure MLB collects the big bucks.

 

Shorts???  Check out the ’76 Whitesox.

 

OK, how about all the following rules are stupid .  

 

Why do they have these rules?  My guess would be for a sense of team and unity.  (c) (2) is probably there so that players don't appear unkempt.  Really, what is so different between some of these rules and a haircut rule?  A particular coach wants his team to be unified, he wants them to be a team and he wants them to be clean and sharp looking.  What's the difference if it's what they physically wear or how they wear their hair?  To some people, it is the same thing and projects the same principles.  

 

 

 

From MLB:

 

1.11
(a) (1) All players on a team shall wear uniforms identical in color, trim and style, and all players uniforms shall include minimal sixinch numbers on their backs. (2) Any part of an undershirt exposed to view shall be of a uniform solid color for all players on a team. Any player other than the pitcher may have numbers, letters, insignia attached to the sleeve of the undershirt. (3) No player whose uniform does not conform to that of his teammates shall be permitted to participate in a game.
(b) A league may provide that (1) each team shall wear a distinctive uniform at all times, or (2) that each team shall have two sets of uniforms, white for home games and a different color for road games.
(c) (1) Sleeve lengths may vary for individual players, but the sleeves of each individual player shall be approximately the same length. (2) No player shall wear ragged, frayed or slit sleeves.
(d) No player shall attach to his uniform tape or other material of a different color from his uniform.

(i) A league may provide that the uniforms of its member teams include the names of its players on their backs. Any name other than the last name of the player must be approved by the League President. If adopted, all uniforms for a team must have the names of its players.

Nope. Grooming standards in the US military are a relatively recent phenomenon, and are functional, not decorative. That's why they're different among branches and positions.

c(2) is pure safety. It's very distracting to hit or pitch when you're looking at fraying or tattered shirts.

 

All of the MLB uniform rules are either safety or to help the fans identify players (branding).

MLB .....is THE SHOW.  Selling image.  The New York Yankees and Yankee Stadium cannot draw hundreds or thousands of dollars for a seat to see a bunch of guys in filthy random clothing roaming around a cow pasture.

 

The Pinstripes....the House that Ruth Built.  The big bucks.  It ain't that hard to figure there.  But MLB has to reference to this issue.  Grown men and millions of dollars.

 

This thing is a mess because "what we have here is a failure to communicate".

 

"Somebody put dirt in my hole" 

I find long flowing hair, long dreadlocks and big bushy beards distracting. :0

It looks like the player stuck his hair in his cap?

Now if I had told the team that hair had to be a certain length and someone tried to get around it by doing that I would be FUMING.  I don't care what type of coach this guy is, that shows disrespect.

The long and the short of it (no pun intended) is that your own players will find as they move forward coaches and managers, teams, etc that have all sorts of rules. Maybe some of them stupid, have nothing to do with talent or the game,  but the whole idea is to learn to respect the game and part of that is also to respect the guy who is your coach and manager.

Lots of people may say that their sons coaches are idiots, they don't deserve the respect.  I have seen that posted here, but IMO a very bad precedent to set, because if your son stays in the game as long as many have, you are going to come across idiots!

If your son can learn to understand and accept this concept early (respect whoever you are playing with as wella s their rules), he will have a much better time as he moves up the ladder.

 

JMO

As an aside (somewhat inspired by TPM's post), I have come to realize that moving up the ladder requires getting rid of all of the distractions.

 

Coach has a rule that doesn't cross ethical boundaries?  Just follow it.  Move on, focus on your game...on your AB, on your next pitch, next ground ball.

 

I think those that become distracted by girls in the stands, whats for snack after the game, who the umpire is today, whether or not its gonna rain...mom and dad say you should play more...coach's "silly rules"...those are the players who fall off the map.

 

In a weird way, I'm realizing how happy I am that we never allowed our sons to get too far astray from the task at hand.  Never complained about a coach in front of them, never doubted a rule, never worried about the weather...we just told them (and still do) to play the game.  Period.

Last week at SRJC, I had the opportunity to visit with John Noce, the famous San Mateo JC Coach as his team was playing SRJC.

 

Every player on both teams wore their uniform, cap the same way. No long hair, no ear rings and no shirt hanging out. "They respect the game".

 

When we travel thru the airports, sometimes I notice a team wearing their uniforms and caps, BUSH league, no respect and we already have a three run lead, if we play this team.

Why does not the specific "long haired" player find another team?

 

Bob

 

 

 

 

How is that respecting the game? Respecting the game is playing hard, playing smart and playing to win. What does all this ancillary stuff have to do with baseball? In fact, the original baseball players had lots of facial hair.

       
       


Matt, don't know how old you are. Not sure you've got your facts straight. Example: 1976 - Sister / one of 3 females to have become an Air Traffic Controller,  her husband was an Officer - Officer of the Year in Negotiations, and then my husband's brother in mid 80's / equivalent of military FBI, before leaving the military and becoming an FBI Agent, all Air Force. All had strict dress code, including their hair.

I have no problem with the player growing out his hair if it truly was for cancer patients. I understand the need for rules but there are times/exception when they should not apply. Matter of fact it would have been even better if the whole team grew their hair out to support their teammates cause. People there are more important things in life than just baseball. The player had his heart in the right place, the mom I cannot speak for since I do not know all the facts. Maybe someone close to her has cancer, just don't know.

Partial History: "announcement by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr. – in “Z-gram No. 57” published in 1970 – that beards could be worn by active duty sailors. Zumwalt believed that the Navy must “learn to adapt to changing fashions” and this meant that sailors should have the freedom to wear the long sideburns, neatly trimmed beards and mustaches favored by civilians."

 

"World War I was the first conflict where shaving was required. There were two reasons: to get a proper fit and seal on the gas mask and personal hygiene. Beards were outlawed, and the maximum permitted hair length was one inch."

 

"senior officers in both the Army and the Navy wore beards and mustaches as a matter of course. While a beard could be worn “at the pleasure of the individual,” both services preferred that it be kept short and neatly trimmed. This preference, however, was very much in the eye of the beardholder. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant had a somewhat neatly trimmed beard while Adm. Stephen B. Luce had a much more wild look."

 

"Beards were forbidden in the Army of the early Republic and soldiers were required to shave a minimum of three days a week, at least while in garrison. A major change in military hair rules occurred in 1801, when Maj. Gen. James Wilkinson, commanding general of the Army, abolished the queue. Some historians believe he took this action because the pigtail was an aristocratic affectation that had no place in an egalitarian republic, but whatever the reason, Wilkinson’s decision caused soldiers to “howl in protest, until their resentment swelled almost to mutiny,” according to a February 1973 article published inAmerican History Illustrated. It seems that soldiers believed that the short hair requirement was nothing short of self-mutilation."

Actually, they aren't but that's ok to make up facts to suit your failing argument.

As for the rules of "tucking in your shirt", let's take it to practice?  Why would a coach require his team to do such a thing when it doesn't affect performance?

Darn hippies.

 

 

 

I agree with Justbaseball,just play the game.

 

 

 

Actually they are, but what do I know? It's only a career of mine.

 

Well he's the coach, so he has the right to make team rules. That doesn't mean there's logic or actual practical purpose to the rule. 

 

We aren't talking facial hair, are we? 

JH - There is a purpose to the rule.  You may not agree with it.  You may not be accepting of it.  It may even be a "stupid" purpose to some.  But there is indeed a purpose.

You can't just state it serves a purpose when it's illogical that it serves that purpose. If you're claiming something against logic, you have to provide extensive data and evidence.

It's been part of the discussion. Anyway, first and third have long hair as well, especially #1.

So my choice is to go round-and-round with you OldSkool or just not engage.

 

I don't think you're within a country mile of considering "logic", so I choose the latter.

I hate wearing pants.  I am miserable wearing pants.  I would love to wear shorts even when I'm teaching.  I wore shorts coaching a football game the weekend before Thanksgiving when the windchill was around 10 degrees because I've never wore pants coaching football.  Hate them.  So what do I wear to school everyday?  You got it - pants.  Does wearing pants make me a better teacher?  Other than giving me a place to put my dry erase marker and a place to hold my keys while I'm teaching they really don't.  You know what pisses me off? PE teachers get to wear shorts instead of pants.  Does wearing shorts make them a better teacher?  I don't think so because they aren't out there working out with the kids.  So why do they get to wear shorts to teach their PE class when I have to wear pants to teach my history class?  It's not fair and it's not right and it's not logical.  But it's the rule because that's what my bosses tell me is the rule.  The thing is - I'm not happy with the situation.  I'm probably in a very small minority who want to wear shorts to teach non-PE classes.  So why doesn't the whole school system change the rules just for us select few?  Give me what I want because I'm not very happy.  Isn't this what some of you are basically wanting because the kid may or may not be growing his hair for cancer?

 

What it boils down to is I know the rule and I know the rule doesn't make sense nor is it "fair".  But at the same time I have choices before me.  1) I can go find me a job where I can wear shorts.  Sadly, the vast majority of them probably pay more.  Nobody is making me teach history.  I made the choice just like I make the choice to wear shorts in 10 degree weather.  2) I can go out and get my PE certification just so I can teach PE classes and wear shorts.  That would be sweet because then I can be like our head football coach.  I don't think he owns a pair of pants.  

 

I put a lot of time, effort, blood (metaphorically), sweat, tears and MONEY to be a history teacher.  So I'm going to be the best dang history teacher I can be and to do that I have to follow rules I don't really like or think make sense.

 

Another rule we have which I think is even more dumb is we have to sign in at the front desk every morning.  I asked one time why we have to do this.  The answer they gave me was because it lets the office know if a teacher doesn't show up so they can get someone to cover their class.  Well on the surface it makes sense but I asked who checks the list every morning and what time do they do it?  Sadly, I brought logic into the discussion and yet nobody had an answer BECAUSE nobody checks the list.  How do I know they don't check the list?  I took a day off and did everything I was supposed to do to get a sub come in for my classes.  Nobody showed up.  The lady who teaches next to me call me about two thirds of the way through first period wondering where I was.  She tells me nobody showed up and another teacher by chance happened to walk into my room looking for me.  My kids said I never showed up so they notified the office.  I wasn't in trouble because I did what I was supposed to do but wasn't the sign in sheet supposed to let the office know after about 10 minutes into the first period I wasn't there?  So if nobody checks it then why keep doing it????  Probably what makes this even more crazy is nobody noticed I was gone because my class wasn't going crazy.  After about 15 minutes when nobody came in the kids got the work off my desk, handed it out and started working on it as if I was there.  Pretty proud of that.

 

Anyway, I decided after this I wasn't going to sign in anymore and went about a month before anybody even noticed.  I got called into the office and the principal told me that ALL teachers at the school had to sign in regardless of what they thought.  It was an awkward meeting because I really wasn't allowed to say anything.  I stood there and took it.  Next day I started signing in again because that's what my boss wanted me to do although I still think it's the dumbest thing ever.

 

So is this principal an dictator who is egotistical?  How dare he come up with rules that make no sense and expect us to follow them?  You know what - he's the boss and once again I have choices.  1) do exactly what he says and stay in his good graces or 2) go find a teaching job that doesn't make us sign in every morning (and hopefully let me wear shorts to teach history).  Somebody has to run the show and that means they have to make the rules.  Same with coaching a team - the coach makes the rules and if you want to be on the team then follow the rules.  I don't understand you people who are questioning the authority of the coach - who else is going to make the rules and run the show?  This mentality of "he's just the coach" just boggles my mind.  Yes he is just the coach - you know the guy who makes the rules because at the end of the day he's the one who is going to be criticized for his actions / record.  So they should be allowed to make the rules they think will help them win and be successful because if they don't win then it doesn't matter what their rules are - they won't be coaching.

Coach- the post to end all posts. Well done. Lots of dumb things being said in this thread. Glad someone made sense.

Excellent post coach. But I think you should get a shave and haircut based on what you look like in your avatar. Isn't there a rule at the school about big afros and 70's mustaches?  

coach- I don't know if your post was directed at me, but if it was then I think you (and most people reading this thread, apparently) aren't following my point at all.

 

I'm not questioning the coach's authority to make the rule. If my coach says to cut my hair, I'm going to cut my hair. It's his team, his decision. That does not stop me from thinking it's a stupid, pointless, meaningless rule that has nothing whatsoever to do with playing the game of baseball or being a good teammate or having team unity or being disciplined or having professionalism. Rules like this DO NOT help the team win, in any way. If anything, rules like this take away from valuable time that the coach could spend on issues pertaining to on-field performance. 

 

Like your examples with shorts and signing in - they're stupid. You don't like them. But you do it because that's what your boss wants you to do. When coaches make rules about hair length, that's exactly how I feel. You do it because you have to. But it's stupid. There's nothing practical about making teachers wear pants, just as there's nothing practical about making kids cut their hair. But you do what you have to do to appease the powers in charge. 

 

Looking at the photo of the kid it looks like he has somewhat of a beard too.

 

Sounds like a simple solution to me.  Shave the whiskers if the coach wants that.  Cut the hair, it looks plenty long enough to donate right now.  You can't donate it until they take it off your head.  Then you can start growing a new wig for cancer patients.  By the time it gets too long again, the season will be over. 

 

Everybody is happy.

 

Well everyone except for maybe mom!

 

I don't know about beards and long hair back in the 1700s.  I do know that when I entered the Army in 1966 the first thing they did was chop off ALL my hair.  If you didn't shave every day, they provided you a razor and told you to dry shave.  I didn't think to tell them it had nothing to do with how good a soldier I might be.

 

Personally I never cared whether my players had long hair.  We didn't allow jewelry, though. But if short hair was important to me and I made it a rule, that rule had to be followed.  There can always be exceptions made for good reasons.  I just don't think that this kid has a good reason.  Cut it and get it donated! It's not helping anyone while it's still on your head! Or do you plan to grow it down to the ground?  

JH I wasn't really directing my post at any one person overall.  I fell asleep twice reading the whole thread.  Overall I think you and I are pretty much on the same page.  

 

I think so too. We usually are… 

 

I don't think there have been that many dumb things said in this thread...just a couple. What I do see going on is people reading things into statements that just aren't there. Despite claims to the contrary, I don't see anyone having an issue with this coach--just the rule. I also don't see anyone claiming that the coach doesn't have the power to run his team the way he sees fit and to make rules as such. 

I believe the minimum length required fir Locks of Love is 10inches. So I think your point is valid if he has 10 inches to cut off, otherwise this to me would be a good exception to the rule.

No lie I used to have this rule.  I said in my playbook I give to each player that rule number such and such the hair had to be a certain length.  Honestly, I had no real reason for having this rule.  It was something I just had because I wanted us to look good as a team.  I didn't have the rule to show who was boss or anything like that - I wanted a certain look for my team to have.  I explained this to the team and overall everyone pretty much conformed.  But we had stretches where games / practices kept the guys from actually being able to get a haircut.  Nobody looked bad but you could tell their hair was getting longer.  One day I just thought to myself "who really gives a $*%$ how long their hair is".  I hated trying to remind myself to check for it because I truly don't pay attention to small things like this.  Kids can break the dress code in my class with minor stuff because I spend more of my time teaching than looking for reasons to get kids in trouble.  So I got rid of the rule and told the guys to only get haircuts if they wanted to.  The world didn't come to an end and they didn't see me as less demanding of a coach or as strict.  They saw me as a human being who didn't get caught up into the ego of making rules just to be making rules.  They saw it was OK to see facts and change your mind because it made more sense this way.  In the off season I went through my playbook and got rid of a whole bunch of stuff that I was tired of trying to enforce or the little things that had them spending more time running poles (or whatever) instead of getting ground balls or BP.  The world still moved on and we kept getting better.

 

That being said if you as a coach want that rule then by all means you have that rule.  It's your team so you can make the rules you want to make.  If you feel that it creates discipline then that's what it does.  I fully support you making that rule because it's your team.  As AD all of our coaches have different rules.  I think some of them are dumb but I will support you to the parents if they come complaining.  At the end of the day if the team is winning then there's very few complaints about much of anything.  If you're losing then haircuts are the least of your problems - being able to compete is.

 

But parents tend to make mountains out of molehills sometimes because they don't want to understand or they feel slighted over something very simple.  It's amazing some of the things I hear as AD. One track parent was ticked off over them not knowing when picture day was although the coaches told them several days ahead and handed out order forms one or two days before.  This parent said we expected too much out of these kids to remember when picture day is and we needed to send a letter home so parents knew......WTF was this guy smoking????  A high school kid couldn't keep up with when picture day is so it's the schools fault.  I guarantee this guy has a ton of rules for his kids that take this kid being able to make their own decisions out of their hands.  But nobody truly questions the parent like we question the coach.  What's the difference?  They both create rules they think will benefit their team / kid.  At the end of the day the kid / team will either be successful or not.  Maybe the rules helped and maybe they didn't.  There's anecdotal evidence to prove that both ways do work.  You find what fits for you and you accept it because it's not worth the agony of fighting over it.

 

But now you get into the nutjobs who think this is getting rid of rights and freedoms because someone is putting rules over you that you don't agree with.  Please for the love of all that's good an holy shoot me in face before I hear another "we're losing our rights" rant.  Please learn what your rights and how they work before you spout off first.  When you have the choice to enter into an agreement with something / someone private (not government) then you have to accept what rules they place on you.  If you don't agree to these rules........then leave which happens to be your choice.  

 

I came across this saying which I love - Just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right.

 

OK I'm going to bed because I don't think I'm even making sense anymore.  Peace

I think its a pretty well known, understood, and proven principal that the perception of "order" has a beneficial effect on people trying to act organizationally.   If you understand how that works (and most people instinctively do), then all of the ideas about dress codes and following coaches orders are pretty easy to get your head wrapped around.   Combat vets will tell you that it can mean life or death, and so they'll tuck in their shirt without questioning whether it's stupid or not, and they'll get it done because "that's what we're doing today."

 

 You also never see the true Pros like Manning or Jeter ever discussing whether or not uniformity and dress code matters - its just second nature to them - they know they need it just like they need good equipment.   And you can bet that if either of them were to find themselves on a third-round playoff hockey team, where everyone had 6-week beards, that Jeter and Manning both would have the same playoff beard as everyone else, because "that's what we're doing today"

 

So I think it's a little short-sighted to say something like, "tucking in your shirt doesn't logically effect performance."  It damn sure does.