Re: Colour clash yesterday. : Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:40 pm  

BroncOnIon wrote: Admittedly my eyesight isn't the best but was I the only one confused by the similarities of the two kits yesterday? As it happened most of the game took place at the north end of the pitch and I sit at the south end so a lot of it was (maybe thankfully) pretty distant. If it's only me I'll shut up about it but I can't understand why either Saints didn't wear their home kit or us our away one. Even having one of the teams in white shorts would have helped. Opinions? I presume you were stood here Well you did say the South End

BroncOnIon wrote: Admittedly my eyesight isn't the best but was I the only one confused by the similarities of the two kits yesterday? As it happened most of the game took place at the north end of the pitch and I sit at the south end so a lot of it was (maybe thankfully) pretty distant. If it's only me I'll shut up about it but I can't understand why either Saints didn't wear their home kit or us our away one. Even having one of the teams in white shorts would have helped. Opinions? I presume you were stood here Well you did say the South End

: Sun Jul 26, 2009 4:42 pm  

Football seems to be able to get it right. There are either clear rules or guidelines on kit to avoid colour clashes in socks, shorts and tops. Sometimes teams are forced to wear shorts or socks that aren't from their secondor third strip. This is probably to help officials on whose hand or foot it was touching the ball but also to enable clarity to a television audience.

Why the rfl can't be bothered to bring in a rule to ensure some clarity is beyond me. You see it rather too often on tv where both teams end up in similar kit when they do have another choice but for some reason don't take it.

Bizarre reasons such as its their away kit or such like is a rather poor excuse. The purpose of the 'away' strip was a change of colours if both teams shared a similar colour scheme. Saints didn't so why they thought a green kit with shorts and socks the same colours as Quins was a suitable choice. Crass marketing or deliberately trying to confuse the officials.

: Sun Jul 26, 2009 5:01 pm  

I don't see how the blue and claret could possibly be similar to the green but maybe that's why Quins lost!!

I don't see how the blue and claret could possibly be similar to the green but maybe that's why Quins lost!!

: Sun Jul 26, 2009 5:26 pm  

Southern Reiver wrote: Football seems to be able to get it right. There are either clear rules or guidelines on kit to avoid colour clashes in socks, shorts and tops. Sometimes teams are forced to wear shorts or socks that aren't from their secondor third strip. This is probably to help officials on whose hand or foot it was touching the ball but also to enable clarity to a television audience. Why the rfl can't be bothered to bring in a rule to ensure some clarity is beyond me. You see it rather too often on tv where both teams end up in similar kit when they do have another choice but for some reason don't take it. Bizarre reasons such as its their away kit or such like is a rather poor excuse. The purpose of the 'away' strip was a change of colours if both teams shared a similar colour scheme. Saints didn't so why they thought a green kit with shorts and socks the same colours as Quins was a suitable choice. Crass marketing or deliberately trying to confuse the officials. Saints in Green - Quins not same Simple!!! Even socks not same Teams not have same name go compare!!!!

Southern Reiver wrote: Football seems to be able to get it right. There are either clear rules or guidelines on kit to avoid colour clashes in socks, shorts and tops. Sometimes teams are forced to wear shorts or socks that aren't from their secondor third strip. This is probably to help officials on whose hand or foot it was touching the ball but also to enable clarity to a television audience. Why the rfl can't be bothered to bring in a rule to ensure some clarity is beyond me. You see it rather too often on tv where both teams end up in similar kit when they do have another choice but for some reason don't take it. Bizarre reasons such as its their away kit or such like is a rather poor excuse. The purpose of the 'away' strip was a change of colours if both teams shared a similar colour scheme. Saints didn't so why they thought a green kit with shorts and socks the same colours as Quins was a suitable choice. Crass marketing or deliberately trying to confuse the officials. Saints in Green - Quins not same Simple!!! Even socks not same Teams not have same name go compare!!!!

: Sun Jul 26, 2009 6:20 pm  

Southern Reiver wrote:

Football seems to be able to get it right. There are either clear rules or guidelines on kit to avoid colour clashes in socks, shorts and tops. Sometimes teams are forced to wear shorts or socks that aren't from their secondor third strip. This is probably to help officials on whose hand or foot it was touching the ball but also to enable clarity to a television audience.

Why the rfl can't be bothered to bring in a rule to ensure some clarity is beyond me.

I thought the primary motivation was to double shirt sales to fans.

: Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:35 pm  

Any color clash was because of the RFL rules, they insist on the away team playing in away colors. I,m sure St Helens would have preferred to play in the home strip.

: Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:36 pm  

Was it sunny yesterday?

: Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:28 pm  

I think you will find the responsibility is with the home team.

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:01 am  

stantheman wrote:

I think you will find the responsibility is with the home team.

So Quins requested that Saints turn out in something resembling military camouflage?

The bottom line is that clubs such as Saints, Wigan, the two Hull clubs etc. traditionally have smart, instantly identifiable shirts. If you see a picture of one of their players in their home shirt you don’t need a caption to tell you which club he’s playing for. I think that’s great, and I like seeing these clubs run out at the Stoop in these colours. I just think it’s a genuine shame when they switch to meaningless nondescript change colours for no good reason other than to plug these replicas to their own travelling support. It was also noticeable that very few of the visiting fans on Saturday were wearing the green replica. The North Stand was a sea of white & red. (Although I myself unwittingly turned up in a dark green T shirt!)

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:27 am  

"I just think it’s a genuine shame when they switch to meaningless nondescript change colours for no good reason other than to plug these replicas to their own travelling support."

not so... I think you'll find that the RFL list what colours each team is playing each week and match the ref and his team's colours against them.
The refs team were clearly in white.
This is normal practice for all prof league football/rugby