2018 Jerseys/Logos/Sponsorships

[GAZF]

Hmm these guys have played for 150 years with no issueView attachment 21617

And pretty much every other sport avoids obvious clashes where possible. Is your point that we should copy the AFL?

 

[kdalymc]

And pretty much every other sport avoids obvious clashes where possible. Is your point that we should copy the AFL?

nah, them 2 jerseys are pretty bad.

bulldogs/eels probably wasnt the best either but theres one extreme and then another. common sense just doesnt seem to be too common in our game.

99% of NRL teams do not need a 'clash' thats what im getting at.
the 'away' jerseys in the early 2000's were a better option for 'money making'- not a bland, mostly white piece of crap, they were the same colours just a different/whacky design.

if there is a clash, yeah sort it out. but like i said common sense is pretty awesome to use..

 

[Timmah]

Last night, the Dogs would've been better off wearing the home jersey - or failing that the black dogs of war thing

 

[big hit!]

Both sides have enough jerseys that this clash could've been avoided fmd

the NRL don't want people at the game, now they don't want them watching on tv.

Last night was f**king ridiculous. I know this comp looks a like 2-bit amateur league with empty large stadia and teams training in public fields, but f**k me, this is one thing that should be easy to control and they can't do that right.

penrith vs warriors a couple of weeks back wasn't good, and I remember newcastle wearing the hi-vis strip to play against wests tigers. there are other examples too.

brought the wrong strip. f**king mongs both at club and comp admin level.

 

[GAZF]

nah, them 2 jerseys are pretty bad.

bulldogs/eels probably wasnt the best either but theres one extreme and then another. common sense just doesnt seem to be too common in our game.

99% of NRL teams do not need a 'clash' thats what im getting at.
the 'away' jerseys in the early 2000's were a better option for 'money making'- not a bland, mostly white piece of crap, they were the same colours just a different/whacky design.

if there is a clash, yeah sort it out. but like i said common sense is pretty awesome to use..

Money making certainly is a driving factor but ease of viewing is a big reason to push for clash jerseys as well. Where you, or I, or someone else draws the line for adequate contrast is dependent on a number of factors including:

• Familiarity with the team/jersey design
• How you're watching the game (live, big/small screen)
• Degree of visual impairment, whether someone knows they have it or not

1 in 12 men suffer from some degree of colour blindness - a pretty big proportion of the sport watching demographic (8%?). I don't have it myself but would imagine that last night's situation would be more commonplace if you can't easily distinguish colours based on their hue

There was a bit of a stink a couple of years back in the NFL when they had all the teams dressed head to toe in the same colour (eg. all red, all blue, etc...). The pic below is easy to distinguish for people with regular vision but looks closer to the video for those with the most common form of colour blindness.

On top of that that there are multiple forms of colour blindness that result in different colour impairments, making it difficult to set clash rules based on hue. That's why contrast based on colour brightness/luminosity is a more reliable approach as it effectively considers colours as shades of grey and only compares the intensity of the light reaching the eye. There just needs to be a more systematic approach to approving clash designs so that last night's problem is far less common.

 

[unforgiven]

Money making certainly is a driving factor but ease of viewing is a big reason to push for clash jerseys as well. Where you, or I, or someone else draws the line for adequate contrast is dependent on a number of factors including:

• Familiarity with the team/jersey design
• How you're watching the game (live, big/small screen)
• Degree of visual impairment, whether someone knows they have it or not

1 in 12 men suffer from some degree of colour blindness - a pretty big proportion of the sport watching demographic (8%?). I don't have it myself but would imagine that last night's situation would be more commonplace if you can't easily distinguish colours based on their hue

There was a bit of a stink a couple of years back in the NFL when they had all the teams dressed head to toe in the same colour (eg. all red, all blue, etc...). The pic below is easy to distinguish for people with regular vision but looks closer to the video for those with the most common form of colour blindness.

On top of that that there are multiple forms of colour blindness that result in different colour impairments, making it difficult to set clash rules based on hue. That's why contrast based on colour brightness/luminosity is a more reliable approach as it effectively considers colours as shades of grey and only compares the intensity of the light reaching the eye. There just needs to be a more systematic approach to approving clash designs so that last night's problem is far less common.

I am colour blind, my daughter thinks its hilarious as I can not see the colour purple at all. The right shade of blue on the right shade of red can actually give me migraines. I did'nt find last night too bad as the white and the yellow is what appears to be prominent to my vision. I find it difficult when 2 teams are dressed in predominantly dark colours so contrast would be extremely beneficial to me.

 

[Timmah]

Matt Logue (Tele) tweeted a short while ago Canterbury were 'under investigation' for last night's clash... and has already deleted it within minutes. odd.

Edit:


I think his original tweet said "failing to wear alternate strip" which was incorrect given it actually was the alternate (away) strip

 

[juro]

Last night was confusing for all of 30 seconds, until I spotted that they were wearing different coloured shorts (blue vs white). After that, no more problem. Seriously, some people (journos) love to complain.

 

[Saint Doc]

I think what happened last night was that Parra (home) wore their home strip, and I can only presume Dogs wore that strip either because they’ve decided to wear it at all away games, OR, more likely, because it’s our half arsed retro round.

Either way it was a terrible decision.
TBH even Dogs home jersey wouldn’t have been great last night as it would have been:
white & blue jersey with blue shorts VS
blue & yellow jersey with white shorts.

Hardly a good contrast.

I know Parra were home but given the retro round thing, this would have looked great in my opinion

 

[GAZF]

I think what happened last night was that Parra (home) wore their home strip, and I can only presume Dogs wore that strip either because they’ve decided to wear it at all away games, OR, more likely, because it’s our half arsed retro round.

Either way it was a terrible decision.
TBH even Dogs home jersey wouldn’t have been great last night as it would have been:
white & blue jersey with blue shorts VS
blue & yellow jersey with white shorts.

Hardly a good contrast.

I know Parra were home but given the retro round thing, this would have looked great in my opinion

The onus really should be on the away team to provide an adequate clash where possible. Since the Dogs wear blue shorts and socks for all three uniforms, it can be very difficult for them to avoid clashes with predominantly blue teams.

 

[Timmah]

I think what happened last night was that Parra (home) wore their home strip, and I can only presume Dogs wore that strip either because they’ve decided to wear it at all away games, OR, more likely, because it’s our half arsed retro round.

Either way it was a terrible decision.
TBH even Dogs home jersey wouldn’t have been great last night as it would have been:
white & blue jersey with blue shorts VS
blue & yellow jersey with white shorts.

Hardly a good contrast.

I know Parra were home but given the retro round thing, this would have looked great in my opinion

All completely wrong.

- It was a mistake by the Bulldogs kit person
- It's not retro round
- It's on the away team to provide a contrasting strip - so yes, it's our mistake

 

[Timmah]

The onus really should be on the away team to provide an adequate clash where possible. Since the Dogs wear blue shorts and socks for all three uniforms, it can be very difficult for them to avoid clashes with predominantly blue teams.

We have this awful option we could've worn, paired with blue or black shorts would've offset the clash fairly well IMO

 

[GAZF]

We have this awful option we could've worn, paired with blue or black shorts would've offset the clash fairly well IMO

Would have been better but still not great. I'll reiterate that two of the three (jersey/shorts/socks) should have significant contrast. In last night's case and your proposal, its still really just the shorts that contrast.

 

[sensesmaybenumbed]

We have this awful option we could've worn, paired with blue or black shorts would've offset the clash fairly well IMO

Y'know, I kind of understand why they didn't wear that

 

[beave]

Y'know, I kind of understand why they didn't wear that

 

[Saint Doc]

All completely wrong.

- It was a mistake by the Bulldogs kit person
- It's not retro round
- It's on the away team to provide a contrasting strip - so yes, it's our mistake

Oh hello, thanks for again reminding us what a condescending twat you can be.

I can only presume as you cried tears of joy at the prospect of demonstrating how condescending you can be, you misread my post. So let me break it down for you. I promise to be as condescending as I can so that you understand.

- I said, “I think” the reason bulldogs wore that jersey is because they were away, or because it was retro round. So it is impossible for me to be wrong, as at the time of writing it, that was what I thought. Is there a source to back up your claim that the kit person made a mistake? I have an actual job so have not been all over news outlets today but a quick look at bulldogs twitter and I cannot see this claim? But even if it has been announced, that was still what I thought at the time. 1/1 correct

- I didn’t say it was NRL sanctioned official 2018 retro round. I said it was our half arsed retro round. Which clearly refers to the fact the main broadcaster has promoted this as retro round and some clubs are embracing it. This article may help you. 2/2 correct
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...ries-are-all-but-extinct-20170729-gxl9qq.html

- “it’s up to the away team to provide the contast” - yes sunshine, I know. I said “I know Parra were home but given the retro round thing, this would have looked great in my opinion”. Saying I would have enjoy the yellow jersey vs blue stripes, it would have been the most visually appealing, whilst acknowledging it wouldn’t happen as Parra were the home team. 3/3 correct.


I look forward to your reply about how I was all completely wrong.

 

[Zerô]

Some Broncos players had a yellow B on the back of their collars and others didn't

 

[Nuke]

I noticed during the Origin series that 'The Star' sponsorship up the top of the back of the NSW players' jerseys differed. Some players had 'The Star', while others had 'The Star' but with 'Sydney' directly underneath it in the logo.

I noticed this during game 2, but didn't happen to notice it in game 3. Presumably one lot of jerseys was made later on and the slight change was made.

You can see both in this photo. Josh Addo-Carr has the 'Sydney' version, while the others (with the exception, maybe, of Roberts) do not.

https://goo.gl/images/CKG1YP

 

[kdalymc]

I noticed during the Origin series that 'The Star' sponsorship up the top of the back of the NSW players' jerseys differed. Some players had 'The Star', while others had 'The Star' but with 'Sydney' directly underneath it in the logo.

I noticed this during game 2, but didn't happen to notice it in game 3. Presumably one lot of jerseys was made later on and the slight change was made.

You can see both in this photo. Josh Addo-Carr has the 'Sydney' version, while the others (with the exception, maybe, of Roberts) do not.

https://goo.gl/images/CKG1YP

Ha true, dodgy

 

[Timmah]

Oh hello, thanks for again reminding us what a condescending twat you can be.

I can only presume as you cried tears of joy at the prospect of demonstrating how condescending you can be, you misread my post. So let me break it down for you. I promise to be as condescending as I can so that you understand.

- I said, “I think” the reason bulldogs wore that jersey is because they were away, or because it was retro round. So it is impossible for me to be wrong, as at the time of writing it, that was what I thought. Is there a source to back up your claim that the kit person made a mistake? I have an actual job so have not been all over news outlets today but a quick look at bulldogs twitter and I cannot see this claim? But even if it has been announced, that was still what I thought at the time. 1/1 correct

- I didn’t say it was NRL sanctioned official 2018 retro round. I said it was our half arsed retro round. Which clearly refers to the fact the main broadcaster has promoted this as retro round and some clubs are embracing it. This article may help you. 2/2 correct
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...ries-are-all-but-extinct-20170729-gxl9qq.html

- “it’s up to the away team to provide the contast” - yes sunshine, I know. I said “I know Parra were home but given the retro round thing, this would have looked great in my opinion”. Saying I would have enjoy the yellow jersey vs blue stripes, it would have been the most visually appealing, whilst acknowledging it wouldn’t happen as Parra were the home team. 3/3 correct.


I look forward to your reply about how I was all completely wrong.

I award you 10 points. (I don't know what the points are for but you can have them. I can even create a banner for you if you like?)

Annnnyway, not sure how you got condescending out of three dot points, and got your panties in a twist so much it required an essay response where you courageously declared yourself the winner but on we go:

- I'm pretty sure "I have an actual job" is how internet arguments were conducted like 10 years ago. Keep up.
Anyway, here:
Minus 3 points

- Your article is useless for two reasons: 1. it's from July 29 last year; and 2. Retro Round is next week, July 26-29 ("Starts July 23"). This video may help you:
(I was never contending whether it was NRL sanctioned or official, I simply said it's not retro round - and it's not).
Minus 6 points

- I contain no sunshine, so you're wrong there too ‍ (I don't even think it's possible to be correct or incorrect there, you were purely putting forward an opinion? So serious).
Minus 1 point

I win (not sure what I win but you lost all 10 points so I guess it's actually a draw?)

....

Moving on to actual discussion, apparently Canterbury asked to wear the black jersey I posted yesterday but were denied by the NRL. Being the away team the 'Dogs turned up with the away jersey, then remembered they were supposed to be in home, but it was too late to go back and get the home jerseys because they were still at the dry cleaners

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/b...e/news-story/0c9264df48fe7db0dae339cffeb8b282