As they do every year, the NFL Rules commission is meeting in West Palm Beach for the NFL Spring Meetings discussing potential new rules for the 2008 season. Mostly the decisions are voted on by the owners, as far as I know. This year, they have so far approved a rule that will completely eliminate rulings of force outs, unless the receiver is actually carried out of bounds. I like this new rule and believe a defender should have the right to force a receiver out of bounds. The owners also have approved a communication device to be installed in one of a defensive players helmet, surprisingly by just one vote. Why any owner would oppose a rule that would help communication between defensive staff and personnel, I have absolutely no clue.

On the other hand, they are walking some SUPER fine lines with the discussion of banning hair sticking out of helmets. So far this new rule has been tabled for later discussion. I have absolutely no idea why these guys would have the brass to even think about a rule that would create an obvious civil rights dilemma. It is no secret that although there are some white athletes that have long hair that sticks out of their helmet, it is obvious which demographic the owners are targeting at this point. Over the last 5-7 years there has been an increasing popularity for black athletes to have long dreads or braids. While there are many sophisticated and intellectual men with dreads/braids, there are too many people that see this hair style as a style reserved for thugs, scumbags, and Pac Man Jones. I know this first hand by simply sitting at a Rams game and hearing the remarks many middle aged white fans have made towards the all-pro running back.

I am not saying that the owners are trying to outlaw this hairstyle because of their racist and prejudice inhibitions. I am just saying that they are walking a VERY FINE LINE and that they should maybe rethink this one and save us one more racial debacle.

What are your thoughts on this potential rule and the others that will be implemented in 2008?

I don't understand the big deal really? I think it comes from something like this: (If you let the kids jump on the bed for the first 5 years of thier life and then tell them they can't there is going to be a debate since they have been able to do it for so long) I personally don't care if they cut it or don't it doesn't bother me. But I don't see how you can turn this into a civil dispute. My place of employment makes me stay with a clean cut and shave and dress nice, it is the way my company wants me so to continue working I am going to follow these rules. I don't see why these athletes should be different and how they would win the fight with the civil right issue, but then again it does seem like these stars (and I use stars because it goes for actresses, actors, sports figures, etc..) seem to be above the law and have thier own rules they are able to follow. Look at all the stars excluding Michael Vick that have been arrested for something and look up a everyday Joe that has them same charges and see the difference in penalties! It ridiculous, but what is the little man to do or say about it....NOTHING..unless it is on a form like this!!!