Lou Lamoriello implements his no facial hair rule

[Alain Racette]

It's dated in how strict it is.

The majority of opinions I've read are fine with a dress code, nobody (or very few) have argued against it. The no facial hair rule takes that a step further and a step towards being archaic because it implies a lack of professionalism for those with beards.

Or certain players (Brent Burns) take the "allow facial hair" rule too far by looking like a homeless man from San Francisco. By not allowing facial hair and keeping one's hair trimmed nicely, you no longer need to police one's beard or long hair - makes things much easier to deal with. If I ran a company with employees in the public eye, Burns would not be allowed to show himself in public until I see a dog's worth hair on the floor by his feet. Let's admit it, he looks like Bigfoot - THAT is unprofessional. The company's dress code is exactly that - a dress code. Conform or play elsewhere. Some people make it sound like a human right's violation.

I personally have no problem with trimmed beards - but I've personally worked with people who take that freedom WAY too far and it looks ridiculous (they treat the allowing of facial hair to let it grow wild and unkempt). It's far easier to just not allow facial hair. Of course there are medical and sometimes religious reasons that permit exemption from the policy. And I would personally allow facial hair for Movember.

I know a lot of people crap on Lou for this policy... but it sends a message: you are not bigger than the team (so future Kessels, pack your bags). I also like Lou's low number policy; the only exception he makes is if he brings a player to the team who has established his career with a high number elsewhere (like Mogilny in NJ). But if you're fresh from the farm, lower numbers all around.

 

[Brewsky]

Forget this rule, I hope a locker room leader steps up and tells Lou that this **** won't fly.

God - I can only imagine Wendel Clark being told to get rid of his facial hair during the early 90's late 80's.

 

[LeafsLegendAkiBerg]

Or certain players (Brent Burns) take the "allow facial hair" rule too far by looking like a homeless man from San Francisco. By not allowing facial hair and keeping one's hair trimmed nicely, you no longer need to police one's beard or long hair - makes things much easier to deal with. If I ran a company with employees in the public eye, Burns would not be allowed to show himself in public until I see a dog's worth hair on the floor by his feet. Let's admit it, he looks like Bigfoot - THAT is unprofessional. The company's dress code is exactly that - a dress code. Conform or play elsewhere. Some people make it sound like a human right's violation.

I personally have no problem with trimmed beards - but I've personally worked with people who take that freedom WAY too far and it looks ridiculous (they treat the allowing of facial hair to let it grow wild and unkempt). It's far easier to just not allow facial hair. Of course there are medical and sometimes religious reasons that permit exemption from the policy. And I would personally allow facial hair for Movember.

I know a lot of people crap on Lou for this policy... but it sends a message: you are not bigger than the team (so future Kessels, pack your bags). I also like Lou's low number policy; the only exception he makes is if he brings a player to the team who has established his career with a high number elsewhere (like Mogilny in NJ). But if you're fresh from the farm, lower numbers all around.

Could you actually explain why someone like Burns is less "professional" because of his beard? How does that effect his ability to play hockey? Hell, in a business scenario, how the hell does facial hair/tattoos/whatever effect anyone's ability to work? This just seems super archaic to me and I can't see the logic. You want someone to wear a shirt with your logo on it? Fine. You won't hire them because they look different? What century are we in again?

 

[ACC1224]

Could you actually explain why someone like Burns is less "professional" because of his beard? How does that effect his ability to play hockey? Hell, in a business scenario, how the hell does facial hair/tattoos/whatever effect anyone's ability to work? This just seems super archaic to me and I can't see the logic. You want someone to wear a shirt with your logo on it? Fine. You won't hire them because they look different? What century are we in again?

Perceived laziness.

 

[LeafsLegendAkiBerg]

Perceived laziness.

That seems like pretty terrible logic to me.

 

[ACC1224]

That seems like pretty terrible logic to me.

it's the world we still live in.

 

[LeafsLegendAkiBerg]

it's the world we still live in.

Why should the ignorance of others contribute to the decisions the guy I quoted would make though? To me it's the same as refusing to hire someone because they have a tattoo. "That's the world we live in" seems like a lame cop out to me. If you can't give a logical reason why these things make someone a worse worker (and let's be honest, you can't), then you're letting personal prejudices and biases get in the way.

And if we're talking hockey, there have been a hell of a lot of clean shaven players who were less effective than Burns.

 

[Moncherry]

Or certain players (Brent Burns) take the "allow facial hair" rule too far by looking like a homeless man from San Francisco. By not allowing facial hair and keeping one's hair trimmed nicely, you no longer need to police one's beard or long hair - makes things much easier to deal with. If I ran a company with employees in the public eye, Burns would not be allowed to show himself in public until I see a dog's worth hair on the floor by his feet. Let's admit it, he looks like Bigfoot - THAT is unprofessional. The company's dress code is exactly that - a dress code. Conform or play elsewhere. Some people make it sound like a human right's violation.

I personally have no problem with trimmed beards - but I've personally worked with people who take that freedom WAY too far and it looks ridiculous (they treat the allowing of facial hair to let it grow wild and unkempt). It's far easier to just not allow facial hair. Of course there are medical and sometimes religious reasons that permit exemption from the policy. And I would personally allow facial hair for Movember.

I know a lot of people crap on Lou for this policy... but it sends a message: you are not bigger than the team (so future Kessels, pack your bags). I also like Lou's low number policy; the only exception he makes is if he brings a player to the team who has established his career with a high number elsewhere (like Mogilny in NJ). But if you're fresh from the farm, lower numbers all around.

I guess hockey players must be really lazy and unprofessional in the playoffs then.

 

[ACC1224]

Why should the ignorance of others contribute to the decisions the guy I quoted would make though? To me it's the same as refusing to hire someone because they have a tattoo. "That's the world we live in" seems like a lame cop out to me. If you can't give a logical reason why these things make someone a worse worker (and let's be honest, you can't), then you're letting personal prejudices and biases get in the way.

And if we're talking hockey, there have been a hell of a lot of clean shaven players who were less effective than Burns.

That's how most teams are put together. GM's like certain things, don't like other things. Lifes not fair sometimes.

Wonder if Burns can give a logical reason why he chooses to look the way he does?

 

[Joey Hoser]

That's how most teams are put together. GM's like certain things, don't like other things. Lifes not fair sometimes.

Wonder if Burns can give a logical reason why he chooses to look the way he does?

Rules require logical reasoning.

Going hair on your face does not.

"Irrational people will draw ridiculous conclusions" doesn't qualify IMO.

 

[ACC1224]

Rules require logical reasoning.

Going hair on your face does not.

I'm sure they have a logical reason. I don't care either way but I doubt they have this rule, just because.

Everything is done for a reason. Only children can get away with "I don't know" when asked why they do something.

 

[Joey Hoser]

I'm sure they have a logical reason. I don't care either way but I doubt they have this rule, just because.

Lots have reasons have been given from Lou and others here. I'm just not buying them.

While I'm normally inclined to defer to the professionals with decades in the business, I just can't do it with this one.

 

[LeafsLegendAkiBerg]

That's how most teams are put together. GM's like certain things, don't like other things. Lifes not fair sometimes.

Wonder if Burns can give a logical reason why he chooses to look the way he does?

And how many GMs are realistically not signing or drafting players because they have facial hair or tattoos? Let's pretend Boston traded Seguin because they didn't like how inked up he was. Great, Dallas can be the better hockey team and the Bruins can revel in how they don't have any of those weird looking kids on their team. Is this what you want in a hockey team? I mean, who gives a **** about actually challenging completely illogical and discriminating practices, that's the way the world is!

Regarding Burns: the logic is that he likes the way it looks or feels and it doesn't really matter what some stuck up people on a hockey board think of him. It has zero to do with his personality, talent or work ethic. It's a personal aesthetic choice. If you would trade Burns away for a 7th because of his beard, that's your prerogative. That makes for some pretty terrible management though.

 

[Menzinger]

One has to wonder how the Hawks and Kings managed to build such great teams by allowing their players to have beards in the regular season?

Love Lou but this rule remains asinine.

 

[ACC1224]

Lots have reasons have been given from Lou and others here. I'm just not buying them.

While I'm normally inclined to defer to the professionals with decades in the business, I can't do it here.

I haven't seen the Leafs reason for this, I'm guessing it's along the same line as wearing a suit to games.

 

[ACC1224]

And how many GMs are realistically not signing or drafting players because they have facial hair or tattoos? Let's pretend Boston traded Seguin because they didn't like how inked up he was. Great, Dallas can be the better hockey team and the Bruins can revel in how they don't have any of those weird looking kids on their team. Is this what you want in a hockey team? I mean, who gives a **** about actually challenging completely illogical and discriminating practices, that's the way the world is!

Regarding Burns: the logic is that he likes the way it looks or feels and it doesn't really matter what some stuck up people on a hockey board think of him. It has zero to do with his personality, talent or work ethic. It's a personal aesthetic choice. If you would trade Burns away for a 7th because of his beard, that's your prerogative. That makes for some pretty terrible management though.

I doubt either of those would happen.
I don't think any of this has anything to do with how they look.

 

[Joey Hoser]

I haven't seen the Leafs reason for this, I'm guessing it's along the same line as wearing a suit to games.

Lou has spoken about it. I'd find a link but I'm on mobile at work. Goolge "Lou on facial hair rule" and you'll probably find it

 

[LeafsLegendAkiBerg]

Lou has spoken about it. I'd find a link but I'm on mobile at work. Goolge "Lou on facial hair rule" and you'll probably find it

The only thing I could find was this:

"Lou just wants us to be pros. Let's look like pros," goaltender Jonathan Bernier, one of the players in the meeting with Lamoriello, said in French on Thursday. "When you're on the road, always wear a suit. Your haircut, your facial hair, all that stuff."

 

[diceman934]

Here is the truth. ....last season we had total anarchy and the inmates ran the aslyum.

This year no issues at all and we have rules and accounibilty for every player. The rule about facial hair is simply part of the big picture.

Funny how things have changed this year with clear rules and someone in charge. Team meals, arrival time before team meetings, dress code that includes ties as well as others give a team structure which is just as important off the ice as it is on the ice.

 

[LeafsLegendAkiBerg]

Here is the truth. ....last season we had total anarchy and the inmates ran the aslyum.

This year no issues at all and we have rules and accounibilty for every player. The rule about facial hair is simply part of the big picture.

Funny how things have changed this year with clear rules and someone in charge. Team meals, arrival time before team meetings, dress code that includes ties as well as others give a team structure which is just as important off the ice as it is on the ice.

Implemented a facial hair rule and we've skyrocketed right to last place!

 

[Rob Brown]

Forget this rule, I hope a locker room leader steps up and tells Lou that this **** won't fly.

God - I can only imagine Wendel Clark being told to get rid of his facial hair during the early 90's late 80's.

Except that will never happen. The GM is the boss so why would anyone come out and tell him he's wrong and he needs to change. The guy is one of the more respected execs in the NHL, and people will treat him as such and accept his rules, however silly they may be.

 

[tp71]

Implemented a facial hair rule and we've skyrocketed right to last place!

Which ignores nearly the entire context of what happened this season. Congrats.

 

[LeafsLegendAkiBerg]

Which ignores nearly the entire context of what happened this season. Congrats.

I'd agree that the Leafs look better this year in some ways, but I'd love for you to present a correlation between shaving facial hair and possession numbers.

 

[ErnieLeafs]

Or certain players (Brent Burns) take the "allow facial hair" rule too far by looking like a homeless man from San Francisco. By not allowing facial hair and keeping one's hair trimmed nicely, you no longer need to police one's beard or long hair - makes things much easier to deal with. If I ran a company with employees in the public eye, Burns would not be allowed to show himself in public until I see a dog's worth hair on the floor by his feet. Let's admit it, he looks like Bigfoot - THAT is unprofessional. The company's dress code is exactly that - a dress code. Conform or play elsewhere. Some people make it sound like a human right's violation.

I personally have no problem with trimmed beards - but I've personally worked with people who take that freedom WAY too far and it looks ridiculous (they treat the allowing of facial hair to let it grow wild and unkempt). It's far easier to just not allow facial hair. Of course there are medical and sometimes religious reasons that permit exemption from the policy. And I would personally allow facial hair for Movember.

I know a lot of people crap on Lou for this policy... but it sends a message: you are not bigger than the team (so future Kessels, pack your bags). I also like Lou's low number policy; the only exception he makes is if he brings a player to the team who has established his career with a high number elsewhere (like Mogilny in NJ). But if you're fresh from the farm, lower numbers all around.

How does somebody else's beard have any effect on your life? Please explain the trauma it causes in detail.

You just typed one of the more ridiculous bits of tripe I've read on this board, and I've been here for years. Congratulations.

 

[AllDay28]

Here is the truth. ....last season we had total anarchy and the inmates ran the aslyum.

This year no issues at all and we have rules and accounibilty for every player. The rule about facial hair is simply part of the big picture.

Funny how things have changed this year with clear rules and someone in charge. Team meals, arrival time before team meetings, dress code that includes ties as well as others give a team structure which is just as important off the ice as it is on the ice.

umm.. or we have Babcock now?