andrewharrington Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 The "disappearing sleeves", as it's being dubbed, are just rolled in sleeves so that opposing players can't grab a hold of them.Oh, and I'd like to shoot down the Under Armor idea. That stuff stinks to high heaven after it's absorbed sweat and dried, plus it's just not a very tough material.Maytag sells this brand new technology that cleans your clothes while you cook dinner or read a book! They're calling it a washing machine.Anyway, you wouldn't need to use UnderArmour. Just adding long sleeves to jerseys isn't that difficult. There might be a little bit more material around the upper arm than some people like, but it woudn't be a huge deal. I like the current short sleeves, and I like long sleeves, but I hate elbow length sleeves. I still don't have a website, but I have a dribbble now! http://dribbble.com/andyharry [The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the position, strategy or opinions of adidas and/or its brands.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 What about a two part jersey?You could essentially have the Chris Hovan (but cover the pads fully) look with underarmor worn underneath the pads. Could put stripes right on the under armor.Long sleeve or short sleeve, but it could go at least to right above the elbows. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmered Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Wouldn't be able to use shoulder pads under our guernseys.But that might be a good thing.heh, seein as ya don't need pads in footy (different tackling rules, in case anyone was wondering), it's probably better for everyone involved. heh, we been tackling below the knees for over 100 years now, and I don't think I'd ever see that rule changed in my lifetime (there are several I'd want to change, none of em having to do with tackling and all of which would take too long for me to bitch about here )In a somewhat perverse way, I'd love to see if rugby would ever consider allowing tackling below the knees, as the folks makin the rules here decided to do back then...maybe they'd finally realize why we wear "all that armour," but I digress.I'm pretty sure that in both games of Rugby they can tackle below the knees.It's just that you're more likely to get injured doing that, because no-one is wearing pads.Aussie Rules you can't. We call that tripping.As for what to do with the stripes etc, I don't see what the problem is with what they have now. Oh, and I've got a site.Footy Jumpers Dot Com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzzaf Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 When you are taught to tackle in Rugby/Rugby League, particularly if you are a small player, the textbook style is to tackle the legs and let the attacking player fall. Its much less work than taking an opposition above the waist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 When you are taught to tackle in Rugby/Rugby League, particularly if you are a small player, the textbook style is to tackle the legs and let the attacking player fall. Its much less work than taking an opposition above the waist.Agreed- the allowed tackling zone is usually the same as the baseball strike zone.Regarding the sleeves, I agree with the idea of using a compression material from the shoulders down the arms (the body could still be mesh) and having them long enough to be elbow length once they get over the pads. That way, you could get the stripes back, plus I think it may even cut down on holding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.