Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty
Absolutely untrue. If you don't match, it's noticed. If the shade of your shirt doesn't match, or if you're wearing some cheap, see-through fabric, or some non-standard color--whether it looks good or not--it's noticed. And if you're wearing some attention-grabbing shoes, it's noticed. Salt stains, fading, wrinkles, dusty shoes ... it's all noticed. Not by all, but by some.
At least, that's the way it is where I work.
|
How many people notice? After a game if you polled both of the teams as well as the spectators and asked them if they noticed anything about the trim on the umpires' shirts what percentage would be able to tell you that one had wider stripes? And what percentage of them would say that the difference in stripes bothered them?
I never said that shoes with a logo would not be noticed. I said no one would care. No player is sitting in the dugout and saying "I can't believe that guy is wearing those shoes on the field." Of course people will notice whatever color shirt the umpire is wearing but they will not care. It is an umpire shirt and it is fine with them.
Dirty, wrinkled pants with holes is different. You seem to equate that to using a "non-standard color" of shirt. I don't even know how you define a "non-standard color". Wasn't navy non-standard when it first came out? Polo blue had never been seen until a few years ago but not it is common.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
And, to put it in perspective, the navy from honings didn't match the navy from +POS which didn't match the Navy from Cliff Keen which didn't match .....
|
There were differences in the sleeve trim width also, correct? On a navy shirt the red stripe would be thin but the bottom white stripe would be very thick.