Chris Johnson playing the bongos after a touchdown: wrong.
Falcons players wearing "Free Mike Vick" undershirts: wrong.
Brian Urlacher wearing unapproved sponsor hat at Super Bowl media day: wrong.
Ryan Clark wearing #21 in his eye black in honor of Sean Taylor: wrong.
I'm sure many of you who read that short list did a double-take at the last item, wondering what is going on. Well the NFL would like you all to know that honoring a fallen friend is just plain wrong. How wrong? Five thousand dollars worth of wrong.
Over the years the NFL offices have been working to crack down on excessive and often choreographed endzone celebrations. Use a prop, get a fine. Dance with teammates, get a fine. Make a political statement, you're fined. I don't have a problem with fining excessive celebration. I mean we don't want things to end up like this:
But to fine a guy for wearing a number in his eye black is ridiculous. Shutdown Corner's Matthew J. Darnell took the NFL to task, saying "Hopefully, that will teach Clark, and all of us, a valuable lesson about paying tribute to our murdered friends." Pat at FanIQ agrees that the NFL is just making itself look bad.
Clark was penalized for "radically modifying his uniform" in his tribute to his former Redskins teammate. What was his "radical modification"? He put the number 21 on his eye black patches.Clark wears #21 in practices as a tribute to his late friend, and has already petitioned the league to change his number for games as well, which was denied.
This is a classy, tasteful and pretty subtle tribute to a former NFL Pro Bowler by someone who was a friend and teammate, and it seems like the NFL is doing everything they can to stop him. There is nothing right about that at all.
Because when I think radical I think tampering with eye-black messages. To be honest putting #21 in your eye-black is about as subtle a modification as you can get, except for maybe writing the number on your cleats with a sharpie, which would probably draw a fine as well. It's not a fashion statement, a shameless brand plug, or a look-at-me motive. It's simply a small tribute to a close friend. Ryan Wilson at AOL's Fanhouse sees the bigger picture here.
I understand that uniforms must conform to certain league guidelines, but at what point does somebody in the NFL Gestapo offices stop and think that fining a player for wearing two-inch-high numbers on his face to honor a fallen teammate could be a public relations disaster.Yeah, we get it: the NFL will cease to exist as we know it if rules aren't followed TO THE LETTER. Repercussions and consequences and whatnot. The thing is, Commissar Goodell and his minions are already over-legislating, and when it takes Steelers safety Troy Polamalu (who I just figured was a mute because he never seems to talk) to point out that tackle football has become a "pansy game," well, it might be time to re-evaluate things.
Sure it makes the league look stupid. The problem is, this won't hurt the NFL one bit. Yeah it's bad PR, but is it going to drive anyone away from the game? Not anyone the league can't live without already. Games will still sell out, merchandise will still be bought, and millions of people will still watch every Sunday on tv.
Twisting the rules to judge that a "radical modification" is a classless and stupid move by the NFL. He's not making a bold statement. Clark is simply honoring a friend. I happen to have a small sticker on my hockey helmet with a nickname and number on it of a friend who passed away. It's simply there to remind me that you can't take the sport you love, or anything else in life for that matter, for granted. So give everything you got all the time, and not only are you playing for yourself, but for those that can't play anymore. These subtle reminders aren't offensive, they don't draw attention to the person wearing them, and they certainly don't cut into any league merchandising or rule enforcement policies.
How long until Roger Goodell and his underlings figure that out?
