AFL's rubbery white shorts policy

[JohnnyFontane90]

What's baffling is why whichever the nominal home team was wasn't in its traditional home kit of orange (Netherlands) or red (Spain).

While I think the AFL needs to start using clash guernseys more (and that's an understatement), I see no reason why national soccer teams wouldn't just wear the home strip that they always do (i.e. Germany in black shorts, with its white shirts and socks against an all-green Algeria). There was no need for Germany to wear white shorts today, that's what I'm getting at. And I'd argue that the vast majority of national soccer teams don't need a third kit, since the home kits are, in all but a handful of cases (e.g Argentina), a solid colour, not half and half.

I certainly don't think the AFL has it right currently, but I don't think soccer always gets it right either with both teams just randomly chucking on whatever with no rhyme or reason. I'm somewhere in the middle.

well at euro 12 spains home kit had blue shorts. not sure if it still is in the world cup, but if it is that would explain the clash between Netherlands blue kit. but either way maybe they do go too far at world cup, but the message is that contrast between the two teams is most important thing. they pick whatever combination distinguishes the two teams from each other best. tradition and pride etc is left at the door. this is the kind of thinking we need.

if you can watch video of the carlton v port game from round 23 last year you'd be appalled at how embarrassingly wrong the afl got it. even at the showdown port Adelaide should have worn their all white strip, instead we had black port vs dark blue crows. this happens every week in afl.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

well at euro 12 spains home kit had blue shorts. not sure if it still is in the world cup, but if it is that would explain the clash between Netherlands blue kit. but either way maybe they do go too far at world cup, but the message is that contrast between the two teams is most important thing. they pick whatever combination distinguishes the two teams from each other best. tradition and pride etc is left at the door. this is the kind of thinking we need.

Well, that is where I think the AFL (in theory) gets it right. A change kit shouldn't consist of a specific shirt, shorts and socks; it should consist of the change shirt and whatever combination of shorts and socks provides the best contrast (if these are the home shorts/socks, wear them). So, if Spain was the home team, it wears its red shirt and blue shorts and the Dutch wear the blue shirt and white (home) shorts. If the Dutch were the home team, it would wear its orange shirt and white shorts and Spain wears all black (its current away kit). Having two teams wear completely different kits to what their first-choice, in a World Cup of all places, will always be ridiculous. But, as you've said, at least we weren't getting the teams mixed up. It may have just taken a little while to figure out who was playing.

if you can watch video of the carlton v port game from round 23 last year you'd be appalled at how embarrassingly wrong the afl got it. even at the showdown port Adelaide should have worn their all white strip, instead we had black port vs dark blue crows. this happens every week in afl.

You're preaching to the choir. There must be dozens of posts in this thread from me pointing to how much of a laugh I think the AFL's policy on clashes is.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

St Kilda Kits for all occasions:

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

St Kilda Kits for all occasions:

View attachment 65227

I'd make the back of the 'cross design' guernsey all red with a black or white number, personally.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

St Kilda Kits for all occasions:

View attachment 65227

what do you do when you play Essendon?

 

[Ice-Wolf]

what do you do when you play Essendon?

If it's our home game we wear or black kit (Tri Panel), if we are away the white kit (Candy Stripe).

Their is more than enough visual differentiation between the Essendon Home Kit and the St Kilda Candy Stripe Kit, particularly from the back.

The Red Kit (Cross) is really for when we play away against Collingwood or maybe North.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

If it's our home game we wear or black kit (Tri Panel), if we are away the white kit (Candy Stripe).

the colors are still too close. the 2nd one needs to be 90% white. and third one needs to be 90% red. I'm of the opinion that total contrast is most important thing. I could also see issues when playing Melbourne, Sydney or even the giants.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

the colors are still too close. the 2nd one needs to be 90% white. and third one needs to be 90% red. I'm of the opinion that total contrast is most important thing. I could also see issues when playing Melbourne, Sydney or even the giants.

If we are away to Sydney we'd wear the Black Kit, against Melbourne the White Kit, against the Giants the White Kit as those kits provide the biggest contrast to their Home/Preferred kits.

 

[D-N-R]

It's funny you mention that example, because it was mind-meltingly stupid.
Spain wear red normally and the Netherlands orange. Yeah ok I can see red clashing with orange a bit, but the Netherlands' away kit is blue for pity's sake.
So we wound up with Spain (the "home" team) wearing their third kit and the Dutch in their away kit because apparently FIFA cannot tell the difference between primary colours.

AS for this game? I'd've preferred us to wear our white kit or at least our white shorts for the game. THe white-shorts-away policy is still dumb.

Collingwood should have worn their dark home kit and Carlton their white away one. I think the high contrast between kits is what is most important so the difference is instantly recognisable. As I mentioned in one of my posts, there are people in this world who don't have 100% eyesight, so strong contrasts in tones is important.

I guess the point I made about the World Cup match was that FIFA told the teams what to wear and this is mandated. In league matches, the referee decides the uniform and I have seen teams in the Premier League borrowing shorts off the opposition because the referee has told them to change.

 

[The Blue Baggers]

Collingwood should have worn their dark home kit and Carlton their white away one. I think the high contrast between kits is what is most important so the difference is instantly recognisable. As I mentioned in one of my posts, there are people in this world who don't have 100% eyesight, so strong contrasts in tones is important.

I guess the point I made about the World Cup match was that FIFA told the teams what to wear and this is mandated. In league matches, the referee decides the uniform and I have seen teams in the Premier League borrowing shorts off the opposition because the referee has told them to change.

Or collingwood could have worn the jumper they had for 100 years b4 Eddie changed it ....

 

[workhorse]

Or collingwood could have worn the jumper they had for 100 years b4 Eddie changed it ....

Or the home team where's whatever jumper combination they like and the away team provide an alternative that creates a good enough clash. (Yes I think collingwood should wear their white clash strip more often)

On the topic of white shorts, we are likely to see another nonsensical instance this Friday where the home team North Melbourne will wear its home white jumper with blue shorts (which is fine) whilst hawthorn, a team which doesn't have white as one of it's colours, will wear white shorts with the brown away jumper because they're the "away" team. Surely in the age of "away" games for a Melbourne team in Melbourne being redundant (only two stadiums) we can abolish the white shorts policy and just have teams wear appropriate coloured shorts which create the best contrast between the two team's kits. i.e Hawthorn wearing brown shorts with their brown away jumper, or Richmond wearing yellow shorts vs St.kilda etc.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

I'd make the back of the 'cross design' guernsey all red with a black or white number, personally.

Hows this?

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Hows this?

View attachment 65298

I like it.

 

[hcd199]

On the topic of white shorts, we are likely to see another nonsensical instance this Friday where the home team North Melbourne will wear its home white jumper with blue shorts (which is fine) whilst hawthorn, a team which doesn't have white as one of it's colours, will wear white shorts with the brown away jumper because they're the "away" team. Surely in the age of "away" games for a Melbourne team in Melbourne being redundant (only two stadiums) we can abolish the white shorts policy and just have teams wear appropriate coloured shorts which create the best contrast between the two team's kits. i.e Hawthorn wearing brown shorts with their brown away jumper, or Richmond wearing yellow shorts vs St.kilda etc.

Should at least be a rule that, if the home team has white and the away team doesn't, the away team doesn't introduce a clashing colour. Hardly likely to create a clash on this occasion, but this sort of thing should be fairly obvious.

 

[Matt_TY]

I guess the point I made about the World Cup match was that FIFA told the teams what to wear and this is mandated. In league matches, the referee decides the uniform and I have seen teams in the Premier League borrowing shorts off the opposition because the referee has told them to change.

And I guess the point I made was that the Netherlands-Spain debacle is exactly what happens when you allow your clash "solutions" to be mandated by stupid people. And don't tell me there aren't plenty of those in the AFL administration.

As for the shorts point, exactly! If we'd worn our white shorts to Carlton's dark, instantly the problem would have been a lot less! That's what we're suggesting, the white shorts away policy is the major problem here and needs to go.

 

[estibador]

As for the shorts point, exactly! If we'd worn our white shirts to Carlton's dark, instantly the problem would have been a lot less! That's what we're suggesting, the white shorts away policy is the major problem here and needs to go.

Problem is Geelong, and occasionally North, seem to be the only clubs mature enough to wear white shorts at home without seeing it as some loss of face.

 

[workhorse]

Should at least be a rule that, if the home team has white and the away team doesn't, the away team doesn't introduce a clashing colour. Hardly likely to create a clash on this occasion, but this sort of thing should be fairly obvious.

Absolutely, it would seem pretty logical wouldn't it...

Like Essendon (red and black) wearing white shorts vs Geelong (white and navy)

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Geelong Kits



Hawthorn Kits

 

[Admiral Byng]

On the topic of white shorts, we are likely to see another nonsensical instance this Friday where the home team North Melbourne will wear its home white jumper with blue shorts (which is fine) whilst hawthorn, a team which doesn't have white as one of it's colours, will wear white shorts with the brown away jumper because they're the "away" team. Surely in the age of "away" games for a Melbourne team in Melbourne being redundant (only two stadiums) we can abolish the white shorts policy and just have teams wear appropriate coloured shorts which create the best contrast between the two team's kits. i.e Hawthorn wearing brown shorts with their brown away jumper, or Richmond wearing yellow shorts vs St.kilda etc.

I agree. It's so simple. Forget white shorts. Just have a clash or alternative strip that provides a clear contrast to what the home team is wearing. The shorts should match one of the dominant colours on the jumper. Thus, if no white on the jumper then no white shorts.

But we can't seem to get this simple thing implemented.

 

[Heardy_101]

Problem is Geelong, and occasionally North, seem to be the only clubs mature enough to wear white shorts at home without seeing it as some loss of face.

No, it's usually Geelong, North seem hell bent on avoiding wearing white shorts.

 

[mcgarnacle]

What's baffling is why whichever the nominal home team was wasn't in its traditional home kit of orange (Netherlands) or red (Spain).

So let's deduce the decision based on the issues in this case and FIFA's tournament match-day kit rules and procedures.

Spain was the designated home team for the match. based on that, Spain wear their primary dark red strip and The Netherlands wear their alternate navy strip because their primary orange strip is considered similar. Sounds reasonable.

BUT

FIFA's tournament kit rules require not only a visual contrast of colour but also a light and dark differentiation of the match-day kits. According to FIFA's strict interpretation of their own rules, The Netherland's alternate strip did not provide this for this match.

So the obvious step is for The Netherlands to provide another alternate to satisfy the guidelines for this match.

BUT

FIFA's tournament kit rules state that each federation provide at least one primary strip and one alternate strip and they must be classified as light and dark.

According to FIFA's interpretation of their rules, Spain's primary dark red and alternate black strips were classified as dark. Spain failed to satisfy the guidelines. In contrast, The Netherlands had satisfied this with their primary orange considered light and alternate navy considered dark.

So, next step would be to allow The Netherlands to wear their primary orange strip and Spain their alternate strip for the match. Logical for this match one would think even though Spain were the designated home team.

BUT

Spain still had not satisfied FIFA tournament kit regulations. They were directed to provide a light strip to satisfy this requirement like every other federation had complied with.

With FIFA being anal with procedure in this regard, it directed Spain to satisfy the guidelines rather than set a precedent of compromise which would most probably be relied upon and abused in future leading to a myriad of issues. Only have to look at the AFL as an example here.

At least FIFA were on top of it all and directed Spain and Adidas to provide an emergency kit with sufficient time. If it were the AFL, then a match-day compromise would've been sought, or nothing would've been done - both precedents that lead to issues in future as we are all aware of.

The light vs dark requirement is very much a FIFA tournament requirement. The various football leagues only require that there is sufficient visual contrast between the two match-day strips.

While I think the AFL needs to start using clash guernseys more (and that's an understatement), I see no reason why national soccer teams wouldn't just wear the home strip that they always do (i.e. Germany in black shorts, with its white shirts and socks against an all-green Algeria). There was no need for Germany to wear white shorts today, that's what I'm getting at. And I'd argue that the vast majority of national soccer teams don't need a third kit, since the home kits are, in all but a handful of cases (e.g Argentina), a solid colour, not half and half.

Germany wearing white shorts is their choice. They and Adidas made the change to their primary kit. Similar to Spain with their all-red primary kit who coincidently, also have Adidas as kit provider. Whether the decision was made based on FIFA's strict tournament rules is something to ask the federations and Adidas. Other nations and kit providers have still gone with different coloured shirt and shorts combinations though.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

So let's deduce the decision based on the issues in this case and FIFA's tournament match-day kit rules and procedures.

Spain was the designated home team for the match. based on that, Spain wear their primary dark red strip and The Netherlands wear their alternate navy strip because their primary orange strip is considered similar. Sounds reasonable.

BUT

FIFA's tournament kit rules require not only a visual contrast of colour but also a light and dark differentiation of the match-day kits. According to FIFA's strict interpretation of their own rules, The Netherland's alternate strip did not provide this for this match.

So the obvious step is for The Netherlands to provide another alternate to satisfy the guidelines for this match.

BUT

FIFA's tournament kit rules state that each federation provide at least one primary strip and one alternate strip and they must be classified as light and dark.

According to FIFA's interpretation of their rules, Spain's primary dark red and alternate black strips were classified as dark. Spain failed to satisfy the guidelines. In contrast, The Netherlands had satisfied this with their primary orange considered light and alternate navy considered dark.

So, next step would be to allow The Netherlands to wear their primary orange strip and Spain their alternate strip for the match. Logical for this match one would think even though Spain were the designated home team.

BUT

Spain still had not satisfied FIFA tournament kit regulations. They were directed to provide a light strip to satisfy this requirement like every other federation had complied with.

With FIFA being anal with procedure in this regard, it directed Spain to satisfy the guidelines rather than set a precedent of compromise which would most probably be relied upon and abused in future leading to a myriad of issues. Only have to look at the AFL as an example here.

At least FIFA were on top of it all and directed Spain and Adidas to provide an emergency kit with sufficient time. If it were the AFL, then a match-day compromise would've been sought, or nothing would've been done - both precedents that lead to issues in future as we are all aware of.

The light vs dark requirement is very much a FIFA tournament requirement. The various football leagues only require that there is sufficient visual contrast between the two match-day strips.



Germany wearing white shorts is their choice. They and Adidas made the change to their primary kit. Similar to Spain with their all-red primary kit who coincidently, also have Adidas as kit provider. Whether the decision was made based on FIFA's strict tournament rules is something to ask the federations and Adidas. Other nations and kit providers have still gone with different coloured shirt and shorts combinations though.

Very interesting. Thanks for clarifying. A few interesting distinctions (e.g. red and orange presents a clash - which I agree with - but red is 'dark' and 'orange' is light) and also interesting that Spain had to provide a light strip for this tournament, I was under the impression that Spain has generally worn dark blue as a change kit (i.e. they would not have satisfied such a requirement in the 2010 tournament, when they wore dark blue in the final against the Netherlands).

So I guess, in my opinion, FIFA's rules for the World Cup are far from perfect as well. It honestly took me about half a minute to figure out who was who in that game, because I was expecting one team to be in red or orange. Dark blue not being suitable to wear against red (because both are 'dark') is utterly ridiculous. It sounds AFL-ish

 

[D-N-R]

Or collingwood could have worn the jumper they had for 100 years b4 Eddie changed it ....

Collingwood were the home team, so they should have the choice.

 

[piesnz]

A lighter coloured shorts without being white would look better while still solving (and avoiding new) colour clashes for a number of teams. Richmond wearing yellow and Essendon red when opposing teams with black and white in their uniforms is a better choice than white shorts for example.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Very interesting. Thanks for clarifying. A few interesting distinctions (e.g. red and orange presents a clash - which I agree with - but red is 'dark' and 'orange' is light) and also interesting that Spain had to provide a light strip for this tournament, I was under the impression that Spain has generally worn dark blue as a change kit (i.e. they would not have satisfied such a requirement in the 2010 tournament, when they wore dark blue in the final against the Netherlands).

So I guess, in my opinion, FIFA's rules for the World Cup are far from perfect as well. It honestly took me about half a minute to figure out who was who in that game, because I was expecting one team to be in red or orange. Dark blue not being suitable to wear against red (because both are 'dark') is utterly ridiculous. It sounds AFL-ish

It was written into this World Cup's kit regulations which is why there was no issue for Spain in 2010. Reasoning was it would enhance the contrast further for a sport that is speeding up to enable officials to make the correct calls when players are lunging in for the ball, deciding throw-ins, corners, goal kicks, fouls, free-kicks, penalties and off-sides.

Probably makes sense, but as you've stated, Spain vs The Netherlands provides an anomaly.

Whether Spain did or didn't satisfy the regulation according to FIFA's interpretation, the match-up with The Netherlands was always going to be an issue under the new regulations. As you state, Dutch Orange and Spanish red do no provide sufficient visual contrast, but the former is considered light and the later dark. The Netherlands cannot wear their alternate kit against Spanish primary kit because both are classified as dark. If it was a Dutch home designated match, then the Spanish would not have been able to wear their FIFA approved alternate kit (has to be a light one) because both match-day kits would be classified as light.

It all comes down to FIFA's interpretation of red being dark and orange being light.