Player Benched For Refusing to Cut Hair

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.  

Or else what, J H...I won't get to think that it's short-sighted anymore ?   

Sue me.

The very definition of disciplines is:

"The practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior."

Forgot to mention that this definition is taken from my old Webster Dictionary.

Just saw this so I am late to the party, but if a coach has rules for appearance, follow the rules or don't play. Pretty simple. What if the issue was wearing earrings, or necklaces, or having your shirt out, or really anything else related to appearance-seems to me it's the coach's call.   A player's "individuality" should be checked at the door...

The cause is a very worthy cause but you know what? The player can cut his hair and then have a bake sale, car wash, or any number of fund-raisers to help the cause of fighting cancer. It sounds like the "cause" wasn't mentioned to the coach initially so he may be a little skeptical, right or wrong. As for the mom, apparently secretly recording the conversation, and engaging in dignified whining...she would get on my last nerve in a hurry...

So say you had a knee operation and had to wear a bulky brace which didn't fit under/over your pants.  Would they allow you to wear shorts in those circumstances?  

I'd say #1 has "long" hair.  Either way, he is the minority.  Simply because you chose 3 generals with longer hair, it does not make a majority.

Not sure because never thought to ask.  But we did have a teacher who was in a car wreck mess his knee up and had to wear the brace.  He wore it over his pants from what I can remember but he may have wore shorts a few days.

Overall I don't think this is a good comparison.  Having an injury that requires something like this is different than someone choosing to have long hair that is not required.

JH - For the first time in a very long time, maybe ever…I just don't agree with you much at all on this topic.  

Thats fine (I hope), kinda makes you like "family" - eh?  

It is a fine comparison in that it shows that in real everyday life there are mitigating circumstances which require rules to be relaxed.  IMO, growing your hair for cancer wigs would fall within the mitigating circumstances.  As I have previously said, the headline should be "Team Grows Hair for Cancer."  Could have brought good publicity for the team, organization and all involved.  Instead, they have this mess. 

Now whether the kid/mom handled the situation appropriately from the start is a different question, i.e.; discussing it with the coach upfront, etc. 

Our entire existence involves watching young baseball players.  Maybe not the most important thing, but appearance always plays a part.  As a coach I always wanted each player to "look" as good as possible.  That first impression can be very important, especially if the player has some talent.

We know college recruiters/coaches that dislike jewelry, long hair, side ways caps, etc. The same thing goes for scouts.  So why give anyone a negative first impression?  

However, if the player displays exceptional tools, everyone wants that kid.  I just think it makes sense to do everything possible to create a positive image.  At least, if a player is young and being evaluated.  So if the coach establishes rules regarding how he wants his players to look and/or act, he might be doing them a big favor.

We have all seen that player where we just don't like the way he looks.  Then if he is talented we get used to his look over time and get over the look.  But, that first impression and a so so day could cause a scout or recruiter to stop following that player. I believe in percentages and want players to have everything possible on their side. Jewelry... Some coaches don't care... Some coaches hate it... No Jewelry... Nobody will say I hate the fact he is not wearing any jewelry.

I think there really is a reason to look like a ball player, at least until someone is paying you to be one.  I don't expect everyone to agree, it's just the way I look at it.

I would like to add this FWIW... Beards on young players are a no no!  I'm not talking about the fuzzy young types, but the full blown type.  We have seen 15 year old kids with a great full grown beard.  Whether true or not, you just have a hard time projecting that player will improve a lot (physically) over the next few years. The beard might be cool, but I would much rather see the 15 year old without one.  There is an advantage in looking as young as possible in many cases.  The 15 year old with a full beard could still end up being a top prospect but the beard is not an advantage.

Bottom line... I would recommend that players should try to look as good as possible In that uniform.  Look like a player... And look like a young player If you are one... Whatever you think that look is.  Please take this as a simple opinion. I don't want to start an argument.

I feel the same way.  

JH, I understand what you are saying.  I simply don't agree.

Great points PG.  My son played for a coach at 15 and 16 in which the coach made the same points.  He always made sure the boys that needed to shave did for the same reasons you pointed out.  He has coached many eventual MLBers and always talked about the image you present and wanting the kids to look young so that there was more room for projection.  

I also agree about first impressions.  No one will ever say they don't want a kid because he doesn't wear an earring or because his hair is too short.  There are a lot of guys who will say they don't want a kid because their hair is long or they do have an earring.  Might be right or might be wrong, but it is a reality.  Unless, of course, the kid throws 97 with command.  

I haven't really weighed in because I still have an unanswered question that matters to me. Maybe I missed it (it's been a long thread), but I'll ask again because I didn't see it from the story. Was this, indeed, a standing rule of the coach? The thread seems to assume that it was. Or was the situation one where the kid showed up with long hair and the coach made upa rule on the spot because he didn't like the hair? I honestly don't know and wondered if anyone here does know? The answer to that greatly affects how I feel about the situation.

roothog - I believe it was a longstanding rule based on the release from the Pincher Creek Board which said in part (posted by Shelby on p. 2 of this thread):

This coach has had the same rule for a number of years now as many boys will attest to.

I get the feeling that Jr went home to his mother and complained about the coaches rule. Mommy came up with the kids cancer angle just to try and find an acceptable excuse for Jr to keep his hair. Notice how the coach even said something to the effect "he should have mentioned that to me on Thursday, not that it would have changed his decision".

Assuming I am on target, just imagine how screwed up this poor kid will be seeing how Mommy doesn't want to play by the rules, and creates a lie hoping to get what they want.

My son made a middle school team, and the coach told the kids they needed a short haircut to play for him. My son told me about it, and even though his hair was not long, we went out and got him a buzz cut. My son proudly showed it off at the first practice, but there were still some kids who had not trimmed their hair at all. Eventually that rule must have been just a guideline because some kids never did cut their hair any shorter than when the coach told them to. Yet my son maintained the buzz cut through the season because that is what the coach had requested.

Lastly, the Mom protesting on behalf of her sons noble reason would be the first to grab the scissors if there was a college scholarship on the line. Different teams/coaches have different rules/styles/coaching methods.

In Oakland you can look like a caveman, while in NY you must look like a Yankee. As you point out, Damon cleaned up nicely and things worked out for him.

If it was a rule in place before that first discussion, that's just the way it is. I used to have rules concerning how to dress for practice and always got the "it has nothing to do with winning argument," but that wasn't always the point. Now, if the kid had agreed to play for this team and then he shows up with long hair and the coach suddenly says, "I don't like long hair and so now I have a rule against it," then I have a problem.

The rule itself is probably without merit, but there is a lot to be said for learning as early as possible that there are lots of stupid rules that you have to follow just to get along and further your own interests.

I also find that many coaches live in the past with things like this. I come from an era where, heck, you never saw a guy's ears. If you had worn a buzz cut, you'd look like an idiot (let alone shaving your head "Mr. Clean" style). Now, a bit before that (say mid-60's) young people with clean haircuts were the ones that didn't cause problems, followed authority, and lived a clean life. The long-haired punks were trouble-makers and criminals. Move to the late nineties/early 2000's and a lot of older people still had that belief, when in reality, for the most part, the long-haired kids were pretty tame while, 9 times out of 10, the buzz cut kid was a Nazi or a gang member. It looks like me, that today, if you want to "look like a ball player," that means long hair and a shaggy, untrimmed beard. At least in most of the MLB games I watch.

Well, oyu know how those dang Canadiens are.

So what's going to happen when a Sikh family moves to Pincher Creek, and their kid wants to play baseball?

going to need a bigger batting helmet

I don't think anyone will lose sleep waiting for that to occur. But if it should the argument for religion is not the same as the argument for charity. But like others I'm suspicious this is not about charity. It's about long hair. Otherwise the kid would have approached the coach up front for a discussion. I'm thinking the cancer charity angle is an argument created after the fact to try to make the coach look bad. The mother's lack of character in secretly video'ing the coach leads me to think this way. 

I gotta be honest with all of you.  When this topic started a couple of days ago, I had NO IDEA it would lead to this much discussion.  Thought it would drop dead pretty quick.  I guess you never know what sparks people's interest.  It surprised me for sure.

bballman,

It is amazing how many ways we can find to waste some time.

No doubt!! 

A guy woke up from a coma after thirty years. He asked his friend what's new. His friend told him he has this device in his pocket that can access the knowledge of the world. But he uses it to look at pictures of cats and argue with people he's never met.

Now that's funny.

Is this statement necessary?

Sure...what it asks is; Is this coach willing to adapt his rules to accommodate those who have different reasons for keeping their hair long? Furthermore, I DO know Sikh kids wear their hair in a way that is neat, and do what they need to do with their hair and different types of turbans to play sports and still respect their religious traditions - and there have been various controversies and incidents in Canada around this, and eventual solutions. Western Canada actually has a pretty large Sikh community (not just in urban areas, either, but not to my knowledge in Pincher Creek, AB) and the sport in Canada people actually seem to CARE about involves helmets, so it's already come up...

It sounds to me like this kid, and/or his mother,  was just looking for conflict where some gentle compromise could have avoided the issue.

Boy, no kidding.  OK, let's see...

Clandestine video taping

Hair length

Cancer

Divorce

Johnny Damon

Old Military

New Military

Civil Disobedience protesters

John Wooden & Bill Walton

Workplace dress code

Wrinkles leading to blisters

John Madden

State Championships

Dictatorial rule

Mattingly's mullet

Our current situation in DC

Donald Sterling & V Stiviano

Canadian moms

Boxers or briefs

Star of David

Rizzuto the barber

Georgetown U's shaved heads

It's a mad mad mad mad world

..and that's just a quick glance at page 1 & 2 !!!

Good job with that cabbagedad!

That, it is!  

Look I'm not trying to start a fight and to be honest I do believe in mitigating circumstances but when I hear people say things along the lines of there is always exceptions I immediately think of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".  Think of it like this - you're walking in the mall and you come across a person who is ugly as sin, obese, and just plain not pretty - nobody you would EVER think about giving the time of day.  But you see them holding hands with another person - their spouse or GF or BF - well to that other person the one who is as ugly as sin to you is flat out beautiful.  They are the one who catches their eye.  So what I'm getting at is just because you see it one way doesn't mean everyone else does.  What you think is mitigating circumstances isn't to someone else.  When I'm running a team I'm the beholder of the beauty that is mitigating circumstances - not anyone else.  

With that being said some people are going to say I'm on an ego trip and a domineering coach or whatever (not saying that you would say it but you get my drift).  That's not the reason why it's my decision.  The reason is when I allow a mitigating circumstance happen that opens the door for other players / parents to try and claim mitigating circumstances.  So if I say yes to one person then do I have to say yes to another or do I have to be able to defend myself if I say no?  Stuff like this is what makes coaching so tough - most everyone is looking for an angle to get something by you.

I agree, you as a leader, are the judge of "beauty."  I would just hope that in this day and age the vast majority of people believe in fighting against cancer and it wouldn't be too hard to judge "beauty."  If it isn't a slam dunk, it is certainly a lay up (I am not commenting on the truthfulness of the kid's/mom's story - I have questions there as well). .

And yes.  You as a "leader" are to judge each circumstance on its own merits and make your decision.  Some will agree and some will disagree.  That's life.  But hiding behind "rules" is chicken squat -- it's what the mindless zero tolerance folks do when they suspend some 1st grader for having children's aspirin.