Interception Percentage Against Dark, Monochrome Uniforms

[catent]

A thought that occurred to me while watching highlights of the Pats-Jets game: I wonder what average interception percentage looks like when compared to interception percentage by QBs playing against a team wearing monochrome, dark uniforms.

Seems like basic sensation/perception that it's going to be tougher to notice someone dressed in clothing that is monochrome (particularly dark and monochrome) than someone dressed in clothing that is contrasting in some regard.

Catching a flashing blitzer or a lurking safety might be easier if they are wearing a navy top coupled with bright white pants, rather than a navy top and navy pants.

No objective evidence behind this -- just seemed like an interesting thing to discuss (and perhaps research - I wonder if someone already has). Just from glancing at the Pats' 2020 stats (the season those unis became the full-time home kit), they had 18 total interceptions; 11 at home, 7 on the road.

 

[signbabybrady]

I've heard Zo talking about how uniform design and color does make a difference. I don't recall what he said was easier to see and what sucked. But I also recall the conversation pivoting to a color blind teammate he had I Think Vinny T who really had issues with it.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Jets jerseys should blend in with grass but the Jets still suck on defense.

.

 

[patchick]

Given the rapid decision-making scenario, I think it has to make some difference. Ideally I suppose you'd want your offense in safety yellow and your defense in green pants with white stripes and a jersey covered in a pattern like this.


I remember decades ago reading that uniform color seemed to even affect penalty rates. It worked a lot like the effect of car color on rates of speeding tickets--some colors just look faster and meaner. At the time, I believe the most-penalized team was the Raiders and the least-penalized was the baby-blue Houston Oilers.

 

[jah]

Maybe that's why a new team adds a black jumpsuit alternate every year.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

A thought that occurred to me while watching highlights of the Pats-Jets game: I wonder what average interception percentage looks like when compared to interception percentage by QBs playing against a team wearing monochrome, dark uniforms.

Seems like basic sensation/perception that it's going to be tougher to notice someone dressed in clothing that is monochrome (particularly dark and monochrome) than someone dressed in clothing that is contrasting in some regard.

Catching a flashing blitzer or a lurking safety might be easier if they are wearing a navy top coupled with bright white pants, rather than a navy top and navy pants.

No objective evidence behind this -- just seemed like an interesting thing to discuss (and perhaps research - I wonder if someone already has). Just from glancing at the Pats' 2020 stats (the season those unis became the full-time home kit), they had 18 total interceptions; 11 at home, 7 on the road.

Team wearing stupid, silly uniforms:

"Uniforms don't matter, we play, we don't make those decisions, let's roll with this."

Teams wearing cool, classy, professional uniforms:

"We look like champions, we feel like champions, let's play like champions."

 

[Kontradiction]

The ****?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

There's a whole area of study in road safety having to do with conspicuity. It's something that can be dictated when it comes to things like signs and marking, and often the conspicuity (or lack thereof} of things like clothing of bicyclyists/pedestrians come into play in a crash scenario. It's clearly a thing. You'd think, therefore, that Seattle (famous for actually having day-glo elements) wouldn't sneak up on anybody, while Atlanta's black/black unis might be deadly (or might not be, if unis could be like camoflage with a pattern mimicking the stadium's/crowd's appearance, a suggestion of grass or turf, etc.)

I mean, if you want to get an advantage by hunting in camo unis, it could be done - same with giving YOUR QB more conspicuous targets. You could figure out which you want to be by testing a high- and low-conspicuity version as your home and away looks.

people would so hate you if it worked.

 

[catent]

Team wearing stupid, silly uniforms:

"Uniforms don't matter, we play, we don't make those decisions, let's roll with this."

Teams wearing cool, classy, professional uniforms:

"We look like champions, we feel like champions, let's play like champions."

Out of curiosity, who is the arbiter of whether or not a given uniform is classified as "stupid, silly" or "cool, classy, professional"?

(I'm guessing it's you, but I figured I'd ask anyway).

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Out of curiosity, who is the arbiter of whether or not a given uniform is classified as "stupid, silly" or "cool, classy, professional"?

(I'm guessing it's you, but I figured I'd ask anyway).

It's me, and my criteria is post-merger/Super Bowl era established/NFL Films/glory type logo/uni's, worn by SB champs until things changed in '82 with the 'Skins variation, including primary whites with the red pants. Then, Bears blue pants, Giants 80's style, Broncos horrific mess, our yucky crap, Bucs' mess...

Giants went back to their historic logo/uni for their two unfortunate defeats of us, Ravens don't really count because they're not really a real team, Rams last year look...stupid & silly.

So, just looking at the winners here. There's over a dozen other teams besides us who looked sharp in the 70's & 80's and now are just embarrassing.

 

[n6249c]

There's a whole area of study in road safety having to do with conspicuity. It's something that can be dictated when it comes to things like signs and marking, and often the conspicuity (or lack thereof} of things like clothing of bicyclyists/pedestrians come into play in a crash scenario. It's clearly a thing. You'd think, therefore, that Seattle (famous for actually having day-glo elements) wouldn't sneak up on anybody, while Atlanta's black/black unis might be deadly (or might not be, if unis could be like camoflage with a pattern mimicking the stadium's/crowd's appearance, a suggestion of grass or turf, etc.)

I mean, if you want to get an advantage by hunting in camo unis, it could be done - same with giving YOUR QB more conspicuous targets. You could figure out which you want to be by testing a high- and low-conspicuity version as your home and away looks.

people would so hate you if it worked.

If conspicuity could be objectively measured perhaps the league could mandate acceptable levels for different team uniforms? Like draft position link it to past performance, so that last year‘s SB winners get the most disadvantageous color scheme, and perennial doormats get the best advantage?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

If conspicuity could be objectively measured perhaps the league could mandate acceptable levels for different team uniforms? Like draft position link it to past performance, so that last year‘s SB winners get the most disadvantageous color scheme, and perennial doormats get the best advantage?

I guess it is possible, although I wouldn't link to draft position. At first it would be great for the league in general, or just one savvy team, to figure out the ways conspicuity would come into play.

Realize the complexity of the project at hand though... when you want your QB to have an advantage, you want your guys to be unlike anybody else and visibly so... when you want your blitz not to get picked up, you would want low conspicuity... I mean, the first question is what the uni rules are now, and what's the state of wearable materials science.

Let's say you can flip a switch and a signal goes out, and your deep navy jersey flips a bit and fades into more neutral versions of the color. Presently illegal? I mean, I'd hope.

Consider complex colors. These are paints (and probably pigments for clothes) that seem to adopt different colors depending on how the light hits them. This is a passive phenomenon, basically where a color changes not just in shading but hue when light hits it a certain way. But let's say you could make the same jersey behave differently by broadcasting a signal. Not changing it from red to blue, but going, say, from a shimmering vermillion to a brick red.

If we could come up with an absolute conspicuity value for two colors, and we could broadcast a wave and go from high to low conspicuity and vice versa, is it legal?

It seems like situational color would be an enormous advantage, but then again, you could build your team situationally according to a color scheme too.

But first you'd need to establish there are no surprises -- that there actually is a significant conspicuity effect that works like we think it does. With so many backgrounds to sort through, recognizing the players is one issue. Then there's the friend vs. foe recognition problem. And then comes the field vision issues football players must process: If he's on path 1, surrounded by other players A, B, and C, and is on a certain vector, what is his likely next move? What are the possible patterns that will emerge from the cluster you're envisioning? What if you got a sort of "amoeba vision" feature out of low conspicuity on the D, where there is less clutter in the way of the dominant pattern, which equates to reducing people to silhouettes, with no distractions?

Sorry, bored and procrastinating. Somebody call Ernie Adams, I am sure he has a thousand pages on this from back when we adopted Winning Uniforms.
@Actual Pats Fan

 

[oldrover]

How about this... could a team legally flip a switch, and change the color... of the FIELD?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Holy crap, watching the ConspicuousHawks play. But you know what? you CAN lose them... against their own fans wearing their jerseys in the background... but that's it

They should ride their bikes home. They are all set for it.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

crap in dingleberry's casino I "bet" on the smurf's new team to beat his old team, then forgot which team he was on for a moment and was temporarily psyched when the Hawks went up by 7...

 

[woolster22]

There's a whole area of study in road safety having to do with conspicuity. It's something that can be dictated when it comes to things like signs and marking, and often the conspicuity (or lack thereof} of things like clothing of bicyclyists/pedestrians come into play in a crash scenario. It's clearly a thing. You'd think, therefore, that Seattle (famous for actually having day-glo elements) wouldn't sneak up on anybody, while Atlanta's black/black unis might be deadly (or might not be, if unis could be like camoflage with a pattern mimicking the stadium's/crowd's appearance, a suggestion of grass or turf, etc.)

I mean, if you want to get an advantage by hunting in camo unis, it could be done - same with giving YOUR QB more conspicuous targets. You could figure out which you want to be by testing a high- and low-conspicuity version as your home and away looks.

people would so hate you if it worked.

Given your QB theoretically knows where his target is going to - wouldn't the real benefit come on defense where obfuscating reads for the offense theoretically brings a major leg up?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Given your QB theoretically knows where his target is going to - wouldn't the real benefit come on defense where obfuscating reads for the offense theoretically brings a major leg up?

I gave that a "confused" just because I don't know any answers, but it seems like the Seahawks have an all-blue option, and an all-OMG-Green option, and I guess you could see what numbers went what direction, if you calculated a few seasons worth, and maybe come up with a decent guess. There would be so many other variables in the way, but let's say you find out that you get 1/4 as many sacks or twice the close completions... it would definitely bear looking. Much more likely it would be on the order of a few percentage points, and hard to establish given all the other variables. You want the job?

(I don't!)

 

[woolster22]

I gave that a "confused" just because I don't know any answers, but it seems like the Seahawks have an all-blue option, and an all-OMG-Green option, and I guess you could see what numbers went what direction, if you calculated a few seasons worth, and maybe come up with a decent guess. There would be so many other variables in the way, but let's say you find out that you get 1/4 as many sacks or twice the close completions... it would definitely bear looking. Much more likely it would be on the order of a few percentage points, and hard to establish given all the other variables. You want the job?

(I don't!)

I do not want the job. I just like to point out exterior variables that may impact/sway results, like competency at QB.

I would expect a well coached Brady led offense to see little/no difference based on offensive player visibility, given I'd expect Brady to know where his guys are going to be at all times (though the sack bit is an interesting angle) in the pass game.

Now with say any the Jete QB's not named Fitzpatrick and their Jete offense, I would expect some level of high-vis to help the QB in the pass game.

There's lots of ways to look at the issue. In the end, I doubt it makes much of a difference (though players 'liking' a uni may give some sort of placebo/confidence bump? Just throwing stuff at the wall here...).

 

[Hyped]

Thoughts in general in regards to this subject:

1.) White cleats are an advantage for boundary receiver sideline toe taps. The ref might see all whites with no green in between the toe/sideline and still call a catch.

2.) The Seahawks managed to do well on defense on MNF with those neon green unis.....

3.) What about a color blind QB? I am sure there were a few in NFL history?