The Bewildering Browns Banned Bat

camo bat hed

By Phil Hecken

While searcing for something else, I came across the rather odd picture you see to your right. It turns out that the picture, and an accompanying article, came from the July 1932 edition of Modern Mechanics. Now, I believe that magazine is still in circulation — I never really got into it (I’m definitely not mechancially inclined), although I believe my dad was a monthly subscriber. I think I’d occasionally thumb thru some of the issues he received, amazed at what was inside, and thoroughly perplexed as to how things worked. But I digress.

Anyway, I came across that picture, which was featured in a short article entitled, “Camouflaged Bat Bewilders the Pitcher, but Gets Banned.” The accompanying text went on to say:

THERE’S an old saying about necessity, being the mother of invention. “Goose” Goslin, outfielder for the St. Louis Browns, was having a hard time hitting that old “apple” during the spring training so he adopted a black and white striped bat, shown at the right, and proceeded to pound his way out of the slump.

This was the first time in baseball history that a camouflaged bat was used. It was designed by Willis Johnson, club secretary, who planned to equip other players with bats decorated with cross-rings, blocks and triangles until the “higher ups” declared the use of the bat illegal.

Very interesting. I’d never heard of this story. I find it odd that a painted, “camouflaged” bat would be declared illegal (even back in the 1930’s). After all, isn’t a pitcher supposed to be staring at the catcher’s mitt for a target? How could this be distracting? Back then, the hitter was likely at even more of a decided disadvantage (no “batter’s eye” black background, I’m sure white caps were still in vogue, I doubt white undersleeves had been declared ‘illegal,’ etc.) So I’m shocked as to why the bat was banned.

Perhaps it was disorienting to the fielders? Did they complain they were unable to follow it as it crossed through the strike zone, possibly causing them to lose sight of the ball?

I’m wondering if this wasn’t just another publicity stunt. By 1932, the Browns were definitely the “second team” in St. Louis, and were sorely lagging behind the Cards in attendance. Perhaps Browns brass felt the novelty bat (and the magic powers it contained) would put some fannies in the seats.

Anyway, I did a little searching, and I found a really neat article on the “evolution of the bat,” and on which there was a short writeup on Goslin’s bat:

Goslin created quite a disturbance during the April 12, 1932 Opening Day game against the Chicago White Sox. He approached the plate with his zebra looking bat, only to have it thrown out by the umpires. William Harridge, President of the American League, ruled out the camouflage or zebra looking bat because it created a distraction.

The author did not hypothesize upon why the bat was tossed.

Any of you readers ever hear of this or have any information? Even if you don’t, anyone want to hazard a guess(es) as to why the bat was ruled out of order? Pretty wild stuff.


exclamationESPN Column Update: Paul has a new ESPN column today.

Don’t forget Paul’s still on the lookout for new college football uniforms. If you spot any of those, please send him a note at this address.


Ticker 3Uni Watch News Ticker: Leading off today is a fantastic article on Wired featuring Michael Princip and his Bulwark Helmet concept, which was featured on UW. Says Mike, “Thank you guys for giving me the opportunity to showcase my helmet concept first at the Uniwatchblog.” … Benjamin Douthett believes this is a rare example of a team using lime green tastefully. Those are the Canberra Raiders of Australia’s National Rugby League. … Here is the official photo preview for the new Manchester United away jersey (thanks to James C. … Everybody’s favorite Yinzer, Douggie Keklak sent in an interesting shirt. It’s made by Reebok, so “I’m guessing it will be available leaguewide.” … Still more information on the purple Husky helmets: “The first game at which the Huskies wore purple jerseys was the 1972 season-opener against the University of the Pacific Tigers, which, interestingly, was also the first game at which UW wore purple helmets. Prior to that season, Washington wore gold helmets and the player who earned the 110 Percent Club award each week was honored with a purple helmet. In 1972, the honoree wore a purple helmet that was decorated with a large gold “W” on the front.” (thanks to Mark Tuben). … Scott Owen found three rare Bo Jackson pics he wanted to share. (1) 1984 pic of Bo in his Auburn Baseball Uni (light blue) with what looks like a Batting practice Mesh hat; (2) 1982 — for his Freshman picture, Bo wore a #41 jersey. He never wore #41 in a game; (3) Bo talking to the 2009 auburn team at practice. Notice the Under Armour logo has tape over it due to his contract with Nike. … DJ Butenschoen knows the Twins once played in the Metrodome. But no more. Says DJ, “Like a dumbass I work across the street from the Dome and watched them paint and delete all signs of the Twinks. I actually took pictures every day to show their progress with the idea to send them into you. But never sent them in so here you go.” … Alan Sias saw Tuesday’s column on Buck Showalter and followed up: “I’m sure I’m not the first Oriole fan to point out that Buck Showalter did not don his trademark pullover; instead, he settled on wearing his #26 jersey for his managerial debut Tuesday night.” I had been so pleased with Buck wearing stirrups, I completely neglected to notice he went sans-jacket. … News from AZ: Kenny Abbey found a whole lot of Arizona football uni related stuff, including pictures of all the players getting fitted with new gear, as well as the new white helmets. … From the “Long NOB” department comes this: Russell Goutierez recently attended a Rome Braves minor league game and this guy – first baseman Riann Spanjer-Furstenburg – has the longest name he’d ever seen on a jersey. It was a double-header so he saw his name on both the red alts and home whites. … More “logo theft” is reported by Jason Cimon where a Mississippi High School is using West Virginia logos. … Tom Adjemian found more “logo theft,” this time of MLB by the Japanese league. “In news that has probably already been brought to you a thousand times over by Jeremy Brahm, head of the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Everything in General, here’s some logo theft that would draw the ire of some Reds fans. Most of us would see a great catch. A Uni Watcher sees something else. … Pretty neat stuff from Adam Zenou who is from Israel and informs us there is a an American football league there, and its been around for 3 years. Says Adam, “We have 8 teams, 10 soon, and its going great. I thought I would mention the website because we have some pretty sweet jerseys as well as nice logos and colorways. I play for the Tel Aviv Sabres. We won the Israel Bowl last season.” Cool. … One can never see enough old football pics of guys wearing Chuck Taylors. Jon Schwartz says, “check out the chucks on this pic of Marion Motley, one of 14 undrafted HOFers.” Oh yeah. … Bradley Blunt gets right to the point when he says “Great peek at specialty license plates on tap in Texas. How could they make one for the other UT (Tennessee)?” … Look what Boise St. started — Jamie Hall notes, “Check out this ugly crap.” That’s Eastern Washington, red turf. “YIKES.” Indeed. … I’m pretty sure this has been mentioned, but Kevin Clark, New Jersey Devils P.A. Announcer and Uni Watch member, doesn’t remember seeing this on Uni Watch yet, so “FYI, the Devils will be wearing their retro red, green and white uniforms on March 18th, 2011 vs the Washington Capitals.” … Jacob Pomrenke points out that the SABR Northwest Chapter website has added a photo gallery of images from the Dave Eskenazi Collection, whose outstanding photos have been featured many times on Uni Watch before. … The Flames are doing a “tribute” jersey for the Heritage Classic — an outdoor game between the Flames and Canadiens. Steve May says, “It’s horrible. It’s apparently a ‘tribute’ to the Calgary Tigers who played in the 1920’s — but done in Flames colours.” Chris Hernandez also sent along this information, but offered no opinion. I’m wondering where they really got their inspiration. … Here’s a rare sight: Peyton Manning in a tinted visor (thanks to Ben Nicholson). Is Peyton wearing his wedding band? … Interesting tidbits from Michael Harris, about Oklahoma State. The first is an extremely thorough walk-through of OSU’s football equipment operation. OSU recently renovated its facilities. The second bit of information is a picture that’s started floating earlier today. As you might remember, Oklahoma State wore black uniforms for the first time in more than a decade last year during a Thursday night game against Colorado. Those uniforms used the same template as OSU’s standard home and away sets, except that the main panels were black and the trim was white. This week, this Nike replica jersey appeared in a local sports shop, and as you can see, the body is black with orange trim.” … “Hey, I was waiting to get my hair cut, so I picked up an old ESPN magazine from January 2010,” writes Terry Duroncelet, “and found that some of the Ohio State players from the Rose Bowl cut some small parts in the back of their pants, which could explain the rising awfulness that is the biker short look in football. Maybe the Nike Pro Combat pant (when it’s a solid pattern) isn’t so bad after all.”


Life deals you a lot lessons. Some people learn from it, some people don’t. — Brett Favre

104 comments to The Bewildering Browns Banned Bat

  • joel | August 5, 2010 at 7:48 am |

    I believe that Nike OSU football jersey is actually a Wyoming replica jersey, and the colors are brown and gold.

    • Andy | August 5, 2010 at 8:43 am |

      There’s a freaking OSU patch on the collar!

    • OrangeForever | August 5, 2010 at 10:11 am |

      1) OSU’s primary logo is featured onthe collar.
      2) Barring change (which I doubt since Wyoming just made the switch to Nike and received new uniforms before this past season), all of Wyoming’s uniforms have “Wyoming” on the chest instead of “Cowboys”.
      3) Oklahoma State has it’s own Nike template (as seem in today’s picture) while Wyoming uses – if I’m remembering correctly -a modified version of Mizzou’s template.

  • The Jeff | August 5, 2010 at 7:49 am |

    The only reason I can think of to ban that type of bat would be to pre-empt a bunch of look-at-me attention whoring. If you allow black & white stripes, then what happens next? Black & orange tiger print? Red & white candy cane striping? Spirals and fractals and god knows what else… better to just keep the bats plain, right?

    • Ricardo Leonor | August 5, 2010 at 8:00 am |

      If that bat had not been banned, the natural progression would have ended up with advertising on the bats!!

      • Dave | August 5, 2010 at 8:29 am |

        We already have advertising on the bats. You’re telling me that those burnt-on labels really need to be as big as they are?

    • RS Rogers | August 5, 2010 at 10:10 am |

      But bats have never been just kept plain. The further back you go, the more decoration you find, from narrow colored rings at the top of the handle to multi-color bands all along the bat head in the early years. And today, batters regularly take to the batter’s box with bats painted – excuse, me, “stained” – in shades of red or deep brown or shiny black, with contrasting colors on the head and the handle. Anyway, while look-at-me attention whoring is a concern today, I’m not aware of anyone in that era expressing concern about it. Players back then were working stiffs, hardly better paid than common tradesmen, and so by and large people reacted to the occasional flashes of individuality quite differently.

  • Ricardo Leonor | August 5, 2010 at 7:58 am |

    Regarding the Texas license plates….I could understand the Sooner plates, particularly in North Texas…..but really why Tennessee? What’s the connection to the state…maybe because its also “UT” and orange…albeit not burnt?

    • Mike Edgerly | August 5, 2010 at 8:15 am |

      My best guess is that alumni who reside in that state get tired of seeing the local schools on license plates. It’s rampant in NC and VA. I took a look at North Carolina’s selection, which includes Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida, and Purdue(!). I’m glad FL’s state legislature is too full of themselves to let out-of-state schools on their plates, but $$$ may change that…

      • Ricardo Leonor | August 5, 2010 at 9:11 am |

        That is true. I have been living in North Carolina for about 2 years…and you almost as many Florida Gator plates as Tar Heel plates….

        • Dan King | August 5, 2010 at 10:35 am |

          My family had a running joke about Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina.

          Ohioans retired/vacationed to Florida
          Floridians retired/vacationed to North Carolina
          and North Carolinians(?) retired/vacationed to Ohio.

    • flip | August 5, 2010 at 10:31 am |

      T for Texas, T for Tennessee? Or so I’ve heard Lynyrd Skynyrd and Johnny Cash say.

      • LI Phil | August 5, 2010 at 10:38 am |

        or “t” for “timbucktoo” if you’re into new minglewood

    • cowtown | August 5, 2010 at 11:59 am |

      At the Dallas auto show, there was a booth where you could flip through a book to get your official and officially licensed Texas plates. I think it’s some sort of gimmick the Texas Department of Public Safety contracted to do with a private company to raise money.

    • TN Eddie | August 5, 2010 at 3:47 pm |

      The state of Tennessee has close to 100 specialty plates, including sports teams, colleges, deer hunting, parks, agriculture, breast cancer research, MADD, and so forth for just $35 extra per year. In pro teams, they have the Predators and Titans (no Grizzlies yet). In college, they have every school in the state, plus Florida, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Clemson, Indiana, Purdue, Penn State, Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Miss State. (There may be some others I’m missing.) All it takes to get a plate is a certain number of people (I think 500) putting down a deposit to buy one. It’s basically just an optional tax for the state to make a few extra dollars.

      • Doug in GA | August 5, 2010 at 4:41 pm |

        The state of Georgia has Bama, Tennessee, Clemson, Auburn, and Florida as license plate options.

    • Brian | August 5, 2010 at 7:24 pm |

      I thought for sure you guys would be complaining more about the Ford license plate than the out-of-state college ones. Or do we not care about “logo creep” if it’s just the DMV?

    • another Josh | August 6, 2010 at 1:23 pm |

      Many of the states that have specialty plates will design them for any group that can get together a certain amount of cash and get some minimum amount of plates ordered. Then they charge a premium to get those plates. At least that’s how it is in Virginia, where I am. So if some alumni group decides they want a plate and can get organized enough, they can get one even if the college isn’t in the state. I find it a little annoying, but then I did get a specialty plate for my car, so apparently not annoying enough. It’s not a college plate though, my school’s local alumni group appears to have not gone the plate route.

  • scott | August 5, 2010 at 8:16 am |

    An article published in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette in 1932 said that Harridge ruled the bat was “trickery, which the league frowned on when it eliminated the white web in the pitcher’s glove, the slitting of a pitcher’s sleeve and the hidden-ball trick.” Of course, the hidden-ball trick has been used over the years and is perfectly legal, right?

    • RS Rogers | August 5, 2010 at 12:50 pm |

      The hidden ball trick is illegal – I think a balk is called – if it’s attempted while the pitcher is toeing the rubber. Basically, the pitcher can’t pretend to have the ball and prepare to pitch. He can pretend to have the ball and walk around the mound or conference with another player or wipe his cleats or whatever, but he can’t step up to the rubber.

      • Pat | August 5, 2010 at 1:14 pm |

        I don’t think he can even be in the dirt of the mound.

        So Rookie Of the Year…totally unbelievable for the hidden ball trick scene alone…

  • Dave | August 5, 2010 at 8:26 am |

    1) The tan breezers that go with that Calgary abortion are truly the dumbest, fugliest thing I’ve ever seen. 2) The snips out of the back of the football pants are so the elastic at the bottom won’t chafe the inside of the knee.

  • DJ | August 5, 2010 at 8:29 am |

    The Flames jersey is not all that horrible, considering it’s a one-off. The khaki breezers they’ll be wearing with it will be a lot harder to get used to.

    • Rob Ullman | August 5, 2010 at 9:37 am |

      I love that Calgary getup…khaki breezers and all. They’re trying to look like a team from the 20s, and they’ve taken it all the way. If everyone’s hatred of it means they’re selling ’em for half price by March, I’ll be more’n happy to take advantage of it.

      • rpm | August 5, 2010 at 12:36 pm |

        i am with you rob, i love it.

        • interlockingtc | August 5, 2010 at 12:43 pm |

          I like them, too, mostly, but I think they would’ve been smarter to reproduce the actual Calgary Tigers logo. There’s a disconnect there that I can’t get around.

        • rpm | August 5, 2010 at 1:37 pm |

          that is a good point, i can’t say i disagree, and perhaps it would have been better that way, but i still don’t mind it.

  • Fred | August 5, 2010 at 8:36 am |

    More “logo theft” is reported by Jason Cimon where a Mississippi High School is using West Virginia logos.

    We’ve got a local school that not only ‘borrows’ West Virginia, they take from the Minnesota Vikings too.

    • Ricardo Leonor | August 5, 2010 at 9:19 am |

      At least that West Vigo school uses green instead of purple…and if you are the vikings, you have to have yellow ( as most nordic vikings being blond ) I suppose.

      I remember when I was in high school we went to Newark ( NJ ) to a really rough neighborhood and played a team called the Vikings that wore Minnesota Viking uniforms, same logos, fonts, colors etc…at the time I thought it was pretty cool..didnt think about copyrights, patents etc…

      I forget the name of the school…any one from Jersey have any clues…

    • J-Dub | August 5, 2010 at 4:33 pm |

      One of our local schools also “borrows” from West Viriginia, and not
      just for football:

  • Ben | August 5, 2010 at 8:39 am |

    Jay Cutler has switched helmets this year.

  • Andy | August 5, 2010 at 8:49 am |

    I really like that Flames getup by itself. However, I can see how people might not like appropriating another team’s uniform as inspiration.

    • oilfan | August 5, 2010 at 10:20 am |

      It’s not so much the appropriation of the Tigers uniform – but the use of the Flames colours and logo on it. If they kept the original black and gold and maybe downsize the Flames logo – oh by about 50%, it would look a lot classier.

      Now they’ll all look like the Hamburglar in Flames colours without the mask

  • Daren L | August 5, 2010 at 9:00 am |

    I’m a Reds fan and I don’t see anything to get up in arms about over the Carp drawing inspiration from the Reds for their identity, if that is in fact what they did. A great look is a great look…

  • Adam | August 5, 2010 at 9:17 am |

    I think Peyton is wearing the tinted visor facemask to cover up that UGLY Horse Face of his… I mean he is a Colt

    • StLMarty | August 5, 2010 at 12:07 pm |

      I thought he was married to football.

  • VB06Hokie | August 5, 2010 at 9:34 am |

    Re: The Arizona Equipment Blog –

    If you scroll about 1/3 way down the page to a picture captioned “Sears Tower” gets a helmet from Benny. Benny had to use a step stool to get a proper look at things”, you’ll notice they have already added Utah and Colorado to their shelf of PAC 10 helmets.

  • Luther Mahoney | August 5, 2010 at 10:00 am |

    The Hiroshima Carp have been wearing red
    “C” caps for years.

    • Dunleavy | August 6, 2010 at 7:42 am |

      I think I recall reading someplace that the Carp took on Reds uniform elements partly because Hiroshima was once Cincinnati’s “sister city.” Perhaps that explains why the Tokyo Giants emulated the New York Giants unis of the time.

  • RS Rogers | August 5, 2010 at 10:04 am |

    Why were press accounts at the time calling it a “camouflaged” bat? There’s some great period video of Sportsman’s Park here, but I see no evidence that the backstop featured narrow vertical striping patterns. So how did that paint pattern help the bat blend into its surroundings, which is sort of the definition of “camouflage?”

    • LI Phil | August 5, 2010 at 10:35 am |

      so far, all we have is the AL president (NOT the umpire, apparently), had the bat banned…i guess he was sitting in the stands on opening day

      the reasoning is given as “it caused a distraction”

      it sounds more like it was distracting to HIM than the players, and i just wonder if he was worried about the precedent it would set, rather than give any actual advantage to the batter

      • RS Rogers | August 5, 2010 at 11:11 am |

        I get that, but why was the press using the word “camouflaged” to describe the bat? How is that pattern “camouflaged”? If the problem is that it’s garish, or distracting, or clownish, or painted like the torture implement of a carousel carnie serial killer, then why not use those adjectives instead of “camouflaged”?

      • LI Phil | August 5, 2010 at 11:17 am |

        agreed…hence today’s post

        perhaps that’s the press’ way of describing it, but we disagree — there may be myriad reasons for wanting to ban the bat (none of which make sense, to me anyway), but “camouflage” is the least germane

        hoping the UW faithful can find out more

        • scott | August 5, 2010 at 12:47 pm |

          Camouflage doesn’t only mean to disguise so as to blend into one’s surroundings. Another definition is “behavior designed to deceive,” according to Webster’s.

        • RS Rogers | August 5, 2010 at 12:56 pm |

          Yeah, but I still don’t get it. What’s the deception? Is there a danger fielders won’t know that the batter has a bat in his hands? I’m not aware of any instances of a big-league batter coming up to bat empty-handed so as to swing his empty fists at the ball. You could make the bat out of rare Bolivian transparent glasswood and everyone in the stadium would know perfectly well that the guy standing next to home plate has a stick in his hands even if they couldn’t see the stick.

          It’s not the banning of the bat that mystifies me, it’s the specific newsmedia word choice. As a former newspaper and magazine editor, I would never have permitted the adjective “camouflage” to be used to describe that bat without specific explanation of the how the deception might plausibly work.

  • Real Men Love Brandi Chastain | August 5, 2010 at 10:14 am |

    Re: License plates.

    Texas apparently is doing an Oklahoma plate, too.

    Maryland has done Penn State and Rutgers plates. Frickin’ odd.

    • Chris Holder | August 5, 2010 at 12:16 pm |

      Odd? I don’t know. I proudly display my University of Alabama plate here in Tennessee. It’s all about money. I believe the Alabama alumni association in Georgia recently got their state to issue ‘Bama tags, and if I remember correctly, it only took 1000 signatures (and their respective deposits, probably). Overall, I think the charge here is an additional $50 to the regular license plate renewal fee, each year. Part of the money goes to the state, and a part also goes to the respective University. I’ve seen Florida, Clemson, Auburn, Georgia, and several other out-of-state plates here in Tennessee.

    • dgc | August 5, 2010 at 1:53 pm |

      Not that odd. If you’re a non-profit organization (your standard alumni org probably is) and have a certain number of signups, Maryland will let your group have a plate. The Caps’ plate I believe is technically for the Washington Capitals Charities.

  • Paul Lukas | August 5, 2010 at 10:38 am |
  • Paul Barrett | August 5, 2010 at 10:39 am |

    I’m surprised some of the more College Football Savvy didnt pick up on this yesterday:

    New Unis for Michigan State and Indiana. Though it looks like it’s just a leak at this point, and not an official unveiling.

    • Paul Barrett | August 5, 2010 at 10:42 am |

      Not a fan of the MS road uni, the Home is pretty “ok”, and the Indiana one screams bumper stickers. Remove the side panels and you have a solid uni.

    • Inkracer | August 5, 2010 at 11:07 am |

      If I recall correctly, the Michigan St. unis have already been unveiled (along with the unis for every other sport for Mich St) and they even had a blog post.
      I’m also pretty certain we have seen IU leaks as well.

      From what I’ve seen, I like the MSU home, the Away is in the middle, not bad, but not good, and I can’t stand the IU unis.

      • LI Phil | August 5, 2010 at 1:15 pm |

        yeah…i covered the MSU unveiling here (scroll down aways)…

        or just check out my flickr set

  • Jonathan Lancaster | August 5, 2010 at 10:43 am |

    Just read a report of Auburn’s 1st fall practice. It looks like Under Armor has outfitted the team with some really ugly contrasting seam practice jerseys.

  • Jim Vilk | August 5, 2010 at 11:28 am |

    Sent this to Phil before I read today’s piece. Apparently striped bats were common in vintage base ball, as shown on this video clip:
    Although those stripes were not as profound as the ones on that camouflage bat.

  • Jet | August 5, 2010 at 11:47 am |

    The St. Louis Browns bat story is Exhibit #2,314 why UniWatch is the greatest!


  • Jet | August 5, 2010 at 11:50 am |

    I kinda like the Flames “retro” unis – at least the sweater and the striped socks, however…

    – I don’t care for the ivory pants
    – why is everyone saying those are the Flames colors? They’ve always been red, yellow, white (plus black) — I see burgundy and old gold on these retros.
    – The current Flames logo looks out of place. If they’re going to make a retro of a team that didn’t exist in the NHL or has no real connection to the Flames, then they should fashion a retro logo for the occasion, maybe just a block “C”, or “Calgary” across the front in an old type face…


  • TheMadFapper | August 5, 2010 at 11:58 am |

    What exactly is so awful about Eastern Washington’s choice of color for their ARTIFICIAL TURF? Now if they had a real grass fuield and painted it read, then you might have something to whine and cry and blubber about like sissy little girls. And going by your reasoninging, you must be against having ANY coloration on football fields, including the chalk lines on the sides and yard lines, right?

    Hypocrites, the lot of ya.

    • StLMarty | August 5, 2010 at 12:18 pm |

      What exactly is so awful about Eastern Washington’s choice of color for their ARTIFICIAL TURF?

      It’s red.

    • StLMarty | August 5, 2010 at 12:20 pm |

      And I consider myself more of a hypercrite.

    • The Jeff | August 5, 2010 at 12:34 pm |

      Red turf is awesome. I’d prefer all football games were played on real grass… in the elements with the rain and snow and mud… etc. But…but but but but… if you’re going to use fake turf, why not color it? In another couple hundred years when we start colonizing other planets, who knows what color the plantlife will be. As long as all the yard lines are in the right place, the color of the ground doesn’t really matter.

      I’d rather see that than than having a damn baseball diamond in the middle of the field for the first month of the season.

    • LI Phil | August 5, 2010 at 12:41 pm |

      it’s pretty awful

      but, the good part is the link is to a live webcam, so you can keep coming back and see more of that red menace each time through

      • Ricardo Leonor | August 5, 2010 at 1:12 pm |

        Back when I lived in NY, I played on a flag football league that played on a black turf field. It looked great, but was hot as hell during the first few games in Sept…

    • RS Rogers | August 5, 2010 at 1:08 pm |

      I agree in principle; if it’s artificial turf, then color choice is arbitrary. However, there are potential functional drawbacks to this particular color choice, and function should always drive design decisions in this realm.

      1. Refs are used to judging the game on a green field. The use of a different color – the opposite color on the color wheel! – is likely to make the refs marginally less good at calling the game.

      2. Red/green colorblindness is quite common among men.

      3. Giant blocks of red never look good on TV. Further, red is the color most likely to cause TV viewers discomfort and even headaches or seizures in certain conditions.

      4. Relatively few football teams wear grass-green uniform elements. Many football teams wear red uniform elements.

      5. A brown football will contrast much more strongly, and therefore be more easily visible, on a green field than on a red field. This goes to #1, but it will also adversely affect players’ ability to see the ball and viewers’ ability to follow plays.

      If we were starting from scratch in a world without grass, we probably wouldn’t choose to make playing fields dark green. We’d probably go with gray-toned pastels, perhaps something like a slate aqua. But we’d certainly never choose bright red. I’d love to see more variety in artificial field colors, but not this. Let’s see some thought put into it – or at least let’s see other elements of the game intelligently modified to minimize the disruption. So if the field is red, then neither team can wear red uniform elements of any kind, and the ball should be a shade of green, yellow, or light gay/white instead of brown, and so forth.

      • RS Rogers | August 5, 2010 at 1:12 pm |

        Ahem. Make that “light gray/white” in my last sentence.

        • DenverGregg | August 5, 2010 at 2:49 pm |

          There’s one reason to spell it “grey”.

      • Andy | August 5, 2010 at 3:48 pm |

        “2. Red/green colorblindness is quite common among men.”

        So… they wouldn’t be able to tell the field was red anyway? Or… they still wouldn’t be able to see the EWU players, because instead of wearing red against a green field, they’re wearing red against a red field?

        “3. Giant blocks of red never look good on TV. Further, red is the color most likely to cause TV viewers discomfort and even headaches or seizures in certain conditions.”

        Has EWU ever been on TV? Seriously wondering, not being facetious.

        “5. A brown football will contrast much more strongly, and therefore be more easily visible, on a green field than on a red field. This goes to #1, but it will also adversely affect players’ ability to see the ball and viewers’ ability to follow plays.”

        Don’t know if this is entirely accurate. Brown is pretty close to the middle of red and green, depending on the specific hue of brown, of course.

        • mike 2 | August 5, 2010 at 5:22 pm |

          We get our US tv feeds from Spokane and they’re on pretty frequently (along with Gonzaga).

          As far as NATIONAL tv goes, that’s another question.

    • Brian | August 6, 2010 at 1:56 pm |

      The biggest problem I have with colored artificial turf is uni-related. When Boise State wears blue monochrome on the blue field, it’s kind of hard to tell exactly what is going on. Wouldn’t be so bad if they wore white or orange pants, but they don’t seem to do that often. That’s the kind of thing that should specifically be disallowed. Otherwise, go ahead and color the field any way you want.

      This isn’t an issue as much with schools that have green fields (which is all of them) and green color schemes, because the green unis generally are different enough from the green field. Oregon especially doesn’t have this problem since they don’t wear real green anyway, and their field has that alternating green color pattern.

  • KT | August 5, 2010 at 1:14 pm |

    Arizona high school football officials have just been notified that the black pants have been approved for use in 2010.

    Of course, the season is long over before it gets cold enough to even think about wearing them in the Valley, but the high country (Flagstaff, etc.) will, I’m sure, get some use out of them.

    Anybody in the Valley who would wear them would be kinda posing. We don’t get seven inches of rain a year, most of it’s in the summer, and there’s really no point.

  • LarryB | August 5, 2010 at 1:18 pm |

    I never knew about that bat from the early 30’s.

    I never understand why it is always reported that a team first wore this color helmet or jerseys. Hardly anybody seems to remember the 30’s or 40’s. I have seen film or the Huskies when they did have some purple helmets and some gold from the early 60’s Figured it was some kind of award system.

  • Pat | August 5, 2010 at 1:35 pm |

    Those Jersey Schedule tees are available in all teams. Football Fanatics has some:

  • JamesP. | August 5, 2010 at 2:08 pm |

    Paul’s newest ESPN Page 2 article is not loading…

  • Jeremy Brahm | August 5, 2010 at 2:29 pm |

    With the Reds wearing the arched C on their hats since 1934, yes it is logo theft. But the Chunichi Dragons wore their arched C in 1954, so they stole it first. However the Carp also wore an arched C for the first time in 1954.

    • Bill | August 6, 2010 at 12:22 am |

      If anyone happened to notice the article about Shaq’s jersey – he’s listed as #36. #34 is Paul Pierce, and #35 is retired for Reggie Lewis.

  • Kyle | August 5, 2010 at 3:12 pm |

    cutting the back of the football pants isn’t a “biker short” thing, it’s a comfort thing. you see it on a lot of guys, especially guys that wear knee braces, because the elastic is very tight and bunches at the spot in the back of the knee where it bends. pants these days are so tight that it’s really annoying. my equipment manager in high school used to get pissed when guys cut the back of the pants and told us to spray water on the area and it would stretch a bit and be better. it kind of works, but isnt the same as the relief from a little slit.
    go here and search barkley or corp and you will come across some photos of the QBs throwing, and you can see they cut the pant leg they wear a brace on.

  • BJ Lanier | August 5, 2010 at 3:14 pm |

    Holy craptastic Batman…

    Found this picture in my local rag…

    Tied to this website:

    • Jet | August 5, 2010 at 3:44 pm |

      ummm…. wow.

    • Ricko | August 5, 2010 at 4:10 pm |

      Gee, being named the Flamingoes you’d expect them to wear black.

    • Ricardo Leonor | August 5, 2010 at 4:15 pm |

      Why Flamingoes in Northern Virginia?

    • StLMarty | August 5, 2010 at 4:57 pm |

      I’m not sire which is worse… the Pelican uniform, or being called the Fuze.

      • StLMarty | August 5, 2010 at 4:58 pm |

        I meant to say “Flamingo”.

  • Kyle | August 5, 2010 at 3:14 pm |

    interesting little not about a missing Nike swoosh on Barkley’s jersey. Would make Paul proud it wasn’t reapplied immediately (and maybe surprised that Nike didn’t mandate it?)

  • Dan | August 5, 2010 at 3:28 pm |
    • Chuck | August 5, 2010 at 11:41 pm |

      OMG, is that a bad looking jersey! Red and white would have been a better choice.

  • Christopher | August 5, 2010 at 3:52 pm |

    The MLB frowns on any attempts to deceve using equipment or foreign substances- even if they don’t really distract at all.

    They’re not ones to study if something actually distracts… its more of a knee-jerk “don’t even try it boys” attitude.

  • Nickbob | August 5, 2010 at 4:09 pm |

    “Tasteful Lime Green, rare”? Sounders fans consider Rave Green always in good taste.

  • Kyle | August 5, 2010 at 6:48 pm |

    another nice catch by a stirrup clad japanese player.

    • LI Phil | August 5, 2010 at 7:29 pm |

      apparently someone didn’t read the ticker

  • =bg= | August 5, 2010 at 10:42 pm |

    If you remove your helmet on an NFL sideline, the rule is you have to put on a baseball cap

    That’s from PL’s article. That’s amazing! You HAVE to wear a cap? You can’t just stand there…

  • Jim Vilk | August 5, 2010 at 11:02 pm |

    Pretty sure he just forgot to use the “tongue-in-cheek” tag on that caption.

  • traxel | August 6, 2010 at 12:02 am |

    Great article Phil. I’ve never heard of that decorative bat before. Jet got it right above.

    • LI Phil | August 6, 2010 at 1:12 am |

      thank you ben

      and thank you for not annoying me this week ;)

  • Casey | August 6, 2010 at 12:12 am |

    Didn’t the NCAA ban non-green football fields a year or two ago based on all the complaints about Boise’s turf from opposing teams ?

  • Jason S. | August 6, 2010 at 2:18 am |

    Great videos about the reconditioning of Michigan’s winged helmets every year.!

  • Craig Costello | August 6, 2010 at 4:30 am |

    Some interesting kits on display at the U16 European Championship for basketball – least of all Belarus’ curvy lines – – and Slovak Republic’s black nameplate on whit shirt –