Ok then, how about exposed forearms?

How about sponsors or team owners having a player injured because of it? What if it was a diamond studded RO Offshore? Of course the public doesn't care about it, but this wasn't a public demand, neither was it a claim made by the players association.

I simply cannot understand why you won't "buy" the safety argument? It is there in the rules, it is not as if they made it up on this special occasion. If they did not respond to him wearing the damn thing and someone else got hurt, where do you think the football association would stand? And while I agree that this particular item probably isn't the worst possible thing to be exposed to during a game, would you want the association to make an exception and why? A line has to be drawn somewhere.

@Yelfel - do you have any examples of this sort of discrimination happening? That would be absurd, I agree.

 

I'm shocked a coach didn't walk up to him on the sideline before the game and say "Are you kidding me? Take that ridiculous thing off. If you are going to wear a watch, at least wear something with class that is tasteful, not that hideous thing.".

All jokes aside, I don't care about football one lick, but it does bother me that there is so little sense of team anymore with so many of these overpaid athletes. I read in my local (Las Vegas) newspaper that a Raiders player was begging on Instagram to be let go by the team, which they did so, and he was immediately picked up by another team. What is that about? Oh, right, money. I miss the old days.

 

@ConElPueblo Happy to have a conversation on discrimination and unconscious bias with you in a private conversation, but perhaps we should keep this thread on topic. Feel free to DM me. My take is that every instance of watches being pushed to the limit in real-world conditions is universally lauded by the watch community. This should be no exception.

Although @repoman lol. I agree with every word.

 

But you use the explicit argument that this wouldn't have happened had it been a different athlete as opposed to this being a safety issue. I do not agree with this, at least not until some documentation of this specific point has been laid out.

If you can raise a topic in open debate, you must expect someone to meet that argument in the same format? Why should it suddenly be kept to PMs?

While I think it is interesting that technology gets pushed to the limits by athletes, people like Nadal or Bubba Watson are both in sports where they face very, very little risk of hurting someone else...

 

@ConElPueblo Are you asking if there have been instances of discrimination specific to NFL players wearing watches on-field? Is that a rhetorical question? Or are you asking if there are more broadly defined instances of discrimination in general? The reason I suggested we take this to PM is because responding via thread posts will probably be inconvenient to anyone wanting to discuss OBJ wearing an RM on-field and not be subjected to a rather complex topic of discrimination.

You feel OBJ put other players at risk by wearing a watch. Great! Totally cool. I feel his criticism is harsh and maybe unusual in the watch community. I question why.

 

...It was you who stated that this would not have happened if the player had been someone else. You wrote that as a counter argument to my point of this being a safety issue and not about who wore it. When asked if you could point out if this had some merit, ie. had a different player worn a watch without being told off you then suggested that the discussion was taken to PM... So I take it that you cannot substantiate your counter argument?

I am only concerned about the issue of whether or not it was fair that he shouldn't be allowed to wear the watch on the field, not how the public (or watch community) feels about it. In my opinion it is completely fair that he was ordered to take it off.

I believe that the ruling body and the games association feels that it puts others at risk and I second that.

Your point about criticism and your questioning why - I am sorry, but I genuinely cannot understand what you mean.

 

On my end, Bias conversation aside, my point is that I didn’t see how a watch poses a risk in a game played in full armor where a helmet, boot, or even the seem of a glove can create the same or more damage. I GET the rule, and I get that it is enforced on principle, I just didn’t quite see the risk....

That being said, since posting that I’m thinking and thinking about it and I suppose there are possible scenarios where there could be damage specifically caused by a watch, if not necesarily by this watch, yes by a diamond studded 2 Ton Invicta; and where do you draw the line? If you accept one watch you should accept them all...... or you just enforce the rule.

So I get it.

 

If you're talking about Antonio Brown, he is getting far less money to sign with the Patriots than he was guaranteed to be paid by the Raiders. It wasn't about the money.

 

From this morning's Washington Post:

By Cindy Boren
September 9 at 2:23 PM

In two of the biggest sports moments of the weekend — a much-hyped NFL season opener and the U.S. Open men’s singles final — Richard Mille nearly stole the show.

One of the luxurious watches produced by the Swiss brand, oddly, turned up on the left wrist of Odell Beckham Jr. on Sunday as the wide receiver made his debut with the Cleveland Browns. That night, another Richard Mille timepiece was front and center on the right wrist of Rafael Nadal, as it so often is, as he was winning his 19th Grand Slam tournament. Together, the two watches were worth nearly $1 million.

Beckham wore an orange RM 11-03 Automatic Flyback Chronograph McLaren that cost him $189,500 at a Richard Mille boutique, a company representative wrote in an email. He kept the watch on his wrist during the Browns’ Week 1 loss to the Tennessee Titans, a violation of NFL rules prohibiting players from wearing hard objects. Never mind that the exquisite piece of workmanship could be damaged; it could actually hurt someone. The NFL will speak with Beckham about his decision to wear the watch, the Associated Press reported.

The watch favored by Beckham was one of only 500 made of that model. (“It’s indestructible,” Beckham told Yahoo Sports.)

Beckham “is not a brand partner and it is his decision to wear his watch on the field,” a company spokeswoman wrote.

“Since the brand began, Mr. Mille only forms partnerships with athletes who commit to wearing a Richard Mille watch while they perform their sport,” Laura Hughes, director of communications at Richard Mille, Americas, wrote in a statement. “They provide the ultimate proving ground for the highly complicated timepieces that are created to be ultra comfortable and precise timekeepers in extremely challenging physical conditions.”

For Nadal, the RM 27-03 Tourbillon Rafael Nadal limited-edition watch (which retails for $769,000) is something of a good-luck charm, and his model is a nod to his native Spain, according to the Richard Mille website. “The striking red and yellow hues of its Quartz TPT case pay homage to Rafa’s native Spain, while the upper skeletonized bridge evokes the forward-facing head of a bull,” the site says, in subdued prose. “A symbol of Spain, this animal is also Nadal’s chosen emblem.”

The RM27-03 was designed to absorb the force of Nadal’s swing, Forbes reported, and, in promotional material, Nadal also said the timepiece feels right.

“Richard came to my house and showed me a model saying: ‘This is the watch that we made for you,’ ” Nadal said in a blurb on the company’s website. “The watch was in platinum so [it was] very heavy, I was very confused and didn’t realize that he was joking. As soon as I tried the real watch on, I loved it. We were on the same wavelength. The watch is now like a second skin for me."

It’s a second skin that isn’t for everyone, though. The company, based in Les Breuleux, Switzerland, was founded by Dominique Guenat and Richard Mille in 2001 and produces opulent timepieces that cost — well, if you have to ask, you can’t afford it.

Richard Mille also works with polo players, Formula 1 drivers, skiers, track and field athletes and golf star Bubba Watson.

“Richard Mille has had a genuine relationship with professional athletes for many years,” Hughes told Complex, “and it only gets deeper.”

 

@gatorcpa, you are saying that is because of sponsorship issues and the safety concerns haven't anything to do with it, right? Did it feature prominently during the game?

 

Reminds me of all of the rappers wearing Jacob & Co. in the early-mid 2000's.
Now they all wear RM.
Who's next?

 

Care to expand on your thought there? Because you may have your ODBs confused. Odell Beckham Jr is not a rapper, he's an American football player...

 

Hideous? Maybe.

Have you picked one of these up in person though? They're rather incredbile honestly, aesthetics aside

 

Hah no, not confused. (RIP ODB).
I just think RM's are generally pretty gaudy, as were the J&C's of the early 00's.
Only comparison here is over paid "celebrities" wearing expensive, ugly watches.
Just my opinion though...

 

Who's next? f they have the money, whomever is next is next!!

 

In either case, Richard Mille wins

 

+1. There's no such thing as "bad" publicity.

 

Not sure if VW agrees with you.