Vests must go!!!

amc32, we've had the vests now for ¬5 years and I've never seen any sponsorship on any of them, so why not wait until coke jumps on board and funds the whole comp until we think about using them, rather than the other way around.

My vic vests don't have numbers or my name on them btw. I didn't have any problems whatsoever with identifying players on the big screen in Sheffield. We've got caps, sticks and bathers to help with that already. Any percieved benefit in terms of spectating has to be weighed against what players want, because this is a game people pay for and play for themselves. It would be nice to get paid to play but I don't think its really on the cards in the next few years. While you might have a potential audience of hundreds I think that like any other nationals you'll have an actual audience of... players waiting for their next game.

Trust me I don't think I'm more muscly than I am. My problem is that I don't fill out the vest

So far seems like the only votes in support of the vests are from women who to be fair aren't really in the same position (I'm not playing in a bloody cat suit).

I'd be keen to see you in a catsuit Nicky...

__________________
It's not whether you win or lose - but whether I win or lose.
www.BentFishDesign.com

To be fair, I'm not keen on a catsuit either...we don't have to wear it at Southerns or Worlds but we do at Nationals.

(This is a personal opinion - I didn't like the catsuit as much as I prefer normal togs)

In regards to the sponsorship, that's a great idea, and when somebody in Australian underwater hockey pulls their finger out and seeks sponsorship then there will be the perfect canvas on which to advertise. Nicky, unless you want to have a sponsor tattooed or painted onto your bod, then I think a vest is the best option.

Also, lets talk about INITIATIVE.

It's something that happens occasionally in the world when someone goes out on a limb and tries something different with a vision for something better. Unless I'm mistaken, the sport's founders would have had a whole lot of initiative to even begin conceptualising the sport. The Australian States agreed on the vests originally as a solution to a problem, it has been debated, it has been voted on, it has been adapted, it has been critiqued. Initiative needs to be taken and encouraged within a sport at all levels of the game. If someone develops an amazing initiative in any country of the world at any level, then no doubt it will filter through. That's what sees the game develop and evolve. You just need to look at the history of stick shapes, pucks, and even refereeing.

Now, TRENDS or FADS are an initiative that boast popularity for a moment then looses momentum. Yes, vests aren't the most TRENDY things, but I don't think we are looking for a momentary solution. The whole concept of vests looks at solving a number of problems, and open up a number of opportunities for the sport.

Anyway, my personal opinion is that it is far too early to chuck it in the "Sooo-early-naughties" trendy trash basket. 8)

Again, where are the sponsorship dollars that everyone keeps talking about? If we had sponsors who were actually putting up money and demanding in return that we put their logos on our vests then perhaps you'd have a point but the fact is we don't. All we have is the requirement to buy and wear expensive, uncomfortable, pointless vests.

I never heard about the vest thing before it became part of the infamous "b section rules", and after five or so years of enduring them for NO reason (ie no sponsorship money) I think its high time we pissed them off. WA showed how good a strictly no bull**** nationals can be this year (ie no vests, 5 mins captains meeting etc...) and we've all seen how popular the invitational comps in Vic, Canberra and Brisbane have been over the last few years. In fact at the vic invitational there were more participants than most nationals.

And I stand by my view that your opinion doesn't count by virtue of your not being connected to the downsides of the vests, which relate to both the wearing and buying of them.

Here's a question: if vests are removed for men then would that mean women don't need to follow the covering the 80% of the torso rule therefore don't need to wear catsuits?

Seems fair enough to me.

people complain about drag, the only time i've experienced any noticeable drag from them was when i used 2 year old ones...

the ones that NSW use are even better (2006 nationals), absolutely no drag

Zoe, the women don't have to wear catsuits, its just an alternative to a vest which still meets the requirements stated in the rules.

Nicky...
Nicky... I'm a chick. For my entire life I've had to pay twice as much as a man to purchase swimsuits. Catsuits are slightly more expensive than a standard female swimsuit, but I'm happy to pay that so my sport looks more credible and professional, and perhaps due to that, companies may be interested in sponsoring us.

When the vests were originally purchased from TYR a proposal was sent around to each state suggesting that we all submit orders for the same uniforms, slightly cutting costs due to the bulk order. As well as this, it was suggested that instead of having light and dark bathers, we instead use State colours, which would see the need for only one pair. The proposal wasn't supported by either Tasmania, Queensland, or Western Australia. Western Australia wanted to stick to their own swimsuit supplier which they'd used for numerous years. Tasmania didn't want to as they didn't have their State team manager elected at that stage, and they didn't like their State colours (Bottle Green, Gold and Red... mind you they didn't have to choose these), and Queensland didn't as they were only sending one team to Nationals.

Nicky, my opinion is valid as I play this sport, love this sport and pay twice as much for my swimsuits as you.

Now that's what I'm talking about. Nice work Todd.