Talk:Uniform number (American football)

"Non-retirement policies" section weirdly divided
Why are Dallas and Oakland grouped together and Pittsburgh and Washington each treated separately? Either Dallas and Oakland should be separated out into their own subsections, or all of the teams that don't retire jerseys should be in one section without being subdivided. gohlkus (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Chart looks wrong
I'm looking for proof on this but I'm fairly sure that the chart is wrong where it lists DL and LB as "Yes" for numbers 30-39 and 40-49. These numbers, as far as I am aware, are only usable by TE/RB/DB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.200.145 (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The chart was made based on the information that was there before it. If there's some sort of reliable source of information regarding the NFL's uniform number policy, the chart should be changed accordingly. Otherwise, I think it should be left as is. EmJaySena (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Kordell Stewart
Gerry Callahan Sports Illustrated (December 11, 1995) "All-purpose Weapon; Steeler Kordell (Slash) Stewart, a passer/runner/receiver, is disarming Pittsburgh's foes"
 * Stewart ... wore number 10 in college, and he intends to stay number 10. The league, of course, does not take lightly any violation of its sacred numerical system. A receiver ... should wear a number between 80 and 89, [not] a quarterback's number (1-19) ... Stewart ... was listed as a quarterback/receiver because, well, that's what he was. "The league said we should list him as a wide receiver, and they wanted to know why we didn't give him a wide receiver's number"

Maybe 10 is a valid WR number nowadays, but if it wasn't allowed in 1995 then the rule doesn't date from 1973 as the article suggests. jnestorius(talk) 23:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Reception (American football) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)