PDA

View Full Version : On the rules of uniforms



vaticanplum
04-10-2006, 10:58 AM
Hey, it's an off-day.

So I don't know how you guys spend your rocking Sunday nights, but over here we like to comb through the more obscure points of the Official Rules of Major League Baseball. Reading through the uniform rules, this one caught my eye:

1.11 (e) No part of the uniform shall include a pattern that imitates or suggests the shape of a baseball.

That's it, that's the rule, it has its own separate point and everything. I like to play very close attention to baseball uniforms, and I was utterly unaware of this. Did you guys know about this? I have a couple of questions on this. First of all, why? Do they think people will get confused by a baseball printed or embroidered on a uniform? And secondly, don't the Reds have Mr. Red flitting about their sleeves these days? The rule specifically says no part of the uniform, thus including sleeves, and Mr. Red's head pretty much unquestionably suggests a baseball.

Ho-hum.

KearnsyEars
04-10-2006, 11:07 AM
hope we wear our current uniforms for the next 20 years. They are sweet.

MrCinatit
04-10-2006, 11:08 AM
The Brewers have also had a baseball portrayed on their uniforms (the M and B in the shape of a baseball and glove). I know it was on their hats during the '80s, at least.
The Dodgers had the baseball flying into the air on their unform fronts (i think) during the '70s.
Pretty sure the Padres in the '70s and '80s had a baseball in the "p".
These are off the top of my head - and potentially incorrect (:p: ) - but this is all i can think of right now.
Interesting find, Vatican. Seems a few teams are not complying.

macro
04-10-2006, 12:05 PM
The Phillies "P" that preceded the current one had a baseball inside it.

PTBNL
04-10-2006, 12:29 PM
On the topic of uniforms, but not the topic we are discussing right now, I think it is ridiculous that you can't change a uniform in consecutive years. Not sure if that explains it correctly, but if you make a change to a uniform, you can not change it again the following year. Hence the no names on the back of the Dodgers uni debacle continues. Not that I care I know who players are, as most true fans should ;) but the fans in LA are in a continued uproar about it.

vaticanplum
04-10-2006, 12:40 PM
The choice of no names on the uniforms (which was instituted and is still observed by the Yankees) is one for which I have always been strongly in favor. The idea behind it is that they are part of a team and thus shouldn't need more than numbers to identify them.

IslandRed
04-10-2006, 12:57 PM
The choice of no names on the uniforms (which was instituted and is still observed by the Yankees) is one for which I have always been strongly in favor. The idea behind it is that they are part of a team and thus shouldn't need more than numbers to identify them.

That's a nice "no I in team" bit for kids and all, but major league baseball is an entertainment product and we do care who the players are. It's fan-friendly (especially in the TV age) to tell who a player is without having to buy a program or look up a roster. Now, I don't need the help for the Reds, but there's another team on the field whose roster I don't know by heart.

Jaycint
04-10-2006, 01:01 PM
I'd love for the Reds uniforms to have the old school, Mr. Red head with the terrible mustache on the front of the uniform.

BCubb2003
04-10-2006, 01:20 PM
The Reds have been wearing the modern Mr. Red on their sleeves in recent years, but not on the new "skins" sleeves, I don't think. Billy Martin would have waited until after a walk-off homer and then protested to the umps.

westofyou
04-10-2006, 01:28 PM
The idea behind it is that they are part of a team and thus shouldn't need more than numbers to identify them.Maybe, the original idea was that the numbers represented where they batted in the order too, that worked out well for them.

vaticanplum
04-10-2006, 01:36 PM
Maybe, the original idea was that the numbers represented where they batted in the order too, that worked out well for them.

Oh yeah I think that's true, I forgot about that.

Who was the first team to put names on? I used to know this.

BCubb2003
04-10-2006, 01:36 PM
Maybe, the original idea was that the numbers represented where they batted in the order too, that worked out well for them.

It would cut down on the lineup shuffling by overactive managers ...

redsmetz
04-10-2006, 01:41 PM
I'd love for the Reds uniforms to have the old school, Mr. Red head with the terrible mustache on the front of the uniform.

Terrible mustache? I've hoped for that mustache to come back for years. He speaks so greatly to the Red Stockings heritage of this team and I agree with the earlier poster who said they should bring it back. It's a classic!:thumbup:

westofyou
04-10-2006, 01:43 PM
Oh yeah I think that's true, I forgot about that.

Who was the first team to put names on? I used to know this.
March 13, 1960: The White Sox unveil new road uniforms with the players' names above the number on the back, another innovation by Bill Veeck.

westofyou
04-10-2006, 01:48 PM
Terrible mustache? I've hoped for that mustache to come back for years. He speaks so greatly to the Red Stockings heritage of this team and I agree with the earlier poster who said they should bring it back. It's a classic!:thumbup:
http://www.sportslogos.net/images/Baseball/NL/CIN_2967.gif

http://www.sportslogos.net/images/Baseball/NL/CIN-RL_7269.gif

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/exhibits/online_exhibits/dressed_to_the_nines/images/nl_1956_cincinnati.gif

vaticanplum
04-10-2006, 01:59 PM
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/exhibits/online_exhibits/dressed_to_the_nines/images/nl_1956_cincinnati.gif

Oh man I love it! On home turf everything is calm and clean, but at away games they bring out Mr. Red to scare the other team! Even the stripes on the socks are bolder and scarier!

A+ 1956 Reds.

BCubb2003
04-10-2006, 02:27 PM
The other team just has to remember to swing at the ball that doesn't have the mustache.

smith288
04-10-2006, 02:36 PM
Terrible mustache? I've hoped for that mustache to come back for years. He speaks so greatly to the Red Stockings heritage of this team and I agree with the earlier poster who said they should bring it back. It's a classic!:thumbup:
Its also putrid. But to each their own

BuckeyeRedleg
04-10-2006, 03:55 PM
Count me as one that likes those plain white home unis (no pinstripes) with red numbers and letters.

And the all red hat and helmet. No more of this black bill thing, especially on the helmet.

deltachi8
04-10-2006, 04:39 PM
I was aware of the rule. In 1989 or so I was doing a marketing report where I chose to attempt to revive the struggling Montreal Expos. Part of my plan was remaking the uniforms and logo. Somehow, I stumbled upon that rule and dumped my design that had a baseball in it.

Of course the professor would never have known, but I felt dirty turning it in so I changed it.

PTBNL
04-10-2006, 09:15 PM
The choice of no names on the uniforms (which was instituted and is still observed by the Yankees) is one for which I have always been strongly in favor. The idea behind it is that they are part of a team and thus shouldn't need more than numbers to identify them.

It wasn't instituted by the Yankees. In the very beginning, uniforms did not have numbers or names. Baseball teams begin using numbers to identify the players by way of the batting order, then later added names. Then added the $*#@%& designated hitter. Okay, that's for another thread. :laugh:

PTBNL
04-10-2006, 09:24 PM
Oh yeah I think that's true, I forgot about that.

Who was the first team to put names on? I used to know this.

1960 White Sox