Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
No, it's similar but has 3 bands of red and white on a green band as opposed to the one band on last years.Grannyman wrote:If it's the same cuddly toy as the gifts section one on the online shop, then the details state 12/13 season.
GNC sponsored the training kit last season tootigerburnie wrote:Training kit seems to have GNC all over it, picture of Ghiraldhini in it.L Smith wrote:I didn't get the mail but I searched the store and I guess it is indeed a representation of how the kit will look. There's no sponsor on the front, though. Will it be Cat or GNC?
That looks alright to me - now lets seewhat happens when they make it full size and (maybe) put a collar on it for the purists !L Smith wrote:No, it's similar but has 3 bands of red and white on a green band as opposed to the one band on last years.Grannyman wrote:If it's the same cuddly toy as the gifts section one on the online shop, then the details state 12/13 season.
http://m.store.leicestertigers.com/stor ... pid=107825
The matchday squads of 22 has been around for longer than the mandatory 1-15 numbering for the starting XV.DickyP wrote:Always thought the logic for everyone going to identical numbering systems (which did make some sense at the time) fell apart as soon as we went to match day squads of 22, now 23, where just seeing a number gives little indication as to where a player is actually playing. Personally I'd love to go back to the variations which added a little 'something' to the game. Let's face it the anomalies were wonderful anyway: we always talked about No 8s etc even when ours were wearing G
This, Sir, is a rugby match, not a cattle sale.tjs10 wrote:The matchday squads of 22 has been around for longer than the mandatory 1-15 numbering for the starting XV.DickyP wrote:Always thought the logic for everyone going to identical numbering systems (which did make some sense at the time) fell apart as soon as we went to match day squads of 22, now 23, where just seeing a number gives little indication as to where a player is actually playing. Personally I'd love to go back to the variations which added a little 'something' to the game. Let's face it the anomalies were wonderful anyway: we always talked about No 8s etc even when ours were wearing G
Even though the bench numbering of 16-23 doesn't directly corrolate to the 1-15 numbers they replace, they do still indicate positions as numbers 16-23 still work from the front row subs backwards. ie Nos 16-18 are the front row subs, 19 & 20 are the pack subs & 21-23 are the backs subs (assuming a 5-3 split on the bench).
London Irish did trial squad numbers for a season or two (before mandatory 1-15 numbering was enforced by PRL/RFU) but it didn't prove popular with the casual spectator.
The enforcement of 1-15 & the scrapping of quirks such as Tigers & Bristol's lettering & Bath's retirement of no.13 was done to make it easier for the casual fan to follow (ie TV viewers) & thus attempt to increase interest/participation in the sport.
The numbering quirks were always popular with the established core fans but they are the people who would stick around regardless & so there is little "need" to try to retain them in the eyes of the marketing bods.
The product in that link has 12/13 season in the details. Scroll down.Jay C wrote:That looks alright to me - now lets seewhat happens when they make it full size and (maybe) put a collar on it for the purists !L Smith wrote:No, it's similar but has 3 bands of red and white on a green band as opposed to the one band on last years.Grannyman wrote:If it's the same cuddly toy as the gifts section one on the online shop, then the details state 12/13 season.
http://m.store.leicestertigers.com/stor ... pid=107825
I'm led to believe that Canterbury will remain as the kit supplierGrannyman wrote:Leicester Tigers no longer appear on the list of clubs on the Canterbury website.
You are correct that there is nothing in the laws of the game to dictate uniform numbering, but there IS something in the Premiership regulations that requires consistency across all teams.h's dad wrote:This, Sir, is a rugby match, not a cattle sale.
There is nothing in the laws dictating that shirts be numbered, doesn’t seem to be in the rules either. You quite often see players changing their shirts when ripped or torn for unnumbered replacements. Some competitions do state that player numbering is required, I’m not sure about the AP.
Tigers do have letters, at least on the home kit, around the badge – bit of tradition there.
SCW says he once sent London Irish out with the players numbered by, I think, size (is that what you’re referring to, tjs?).
Thank tjs. This makes me even more surprised that Bath are going to be wearing shirts with five different logos across their chests next season. Surely this must be in breach of the rules that you refer to?tjs10 wrote:You are correct that there is nothing in the laws of the game to dictate uniform numbering, but there IS something in the Premiership regulations that requires consistency across all teams.h's dad wrote:This, Sir, is a rugby match, not a cattle sale.
There is nothing in the laws dictating that shirts be numbered, doesn’t seem to be in the rules either. You quite often see players changing their shirts when ripped or torn for unnumbered replacements. Some competitions do state that player numbering is required, I’m not sure about the AP.
Tigers do have letters, at least on the home kit, around the badge – bit of tradition there.
SCW says he once sent London Irish out with the players numbered by, I think, size (is that what you’re referring to, tjs?).
It was for that very reason that Leicester, Bath & Bristol were all required to change their old methods for the current practice.
From memory it was around 1998/99 season that the rule came in?
And no, that LI reference isn't what I was referring to. I seem to recall they spent one season where they had squad numbers. Richmond also did it for a season too if I remember correctly.
