Defensive Line Jersey Switch @Halftime

Submitted by brewandbluesaturdays on October 10th, 2011 at 3:30 PM

During the first half of Saturdays game I remember complaining out loud that the D-line was getting held quite often but to no avail to the referrees. I DVR'd the game and always rewatch on Mondays and I just realized that the entire D-line switched jersey's to last years away jerseys. This years jerseys are definitely more form fitting and much tighter than the past couple of years. I hadn't noticed this happening at all in any of the previous games and also took note that none of the other defensive players made this jersey switch. Am I just crazy or do you all think that this was done to try and draw more holding penalties on the Northwestern O-line? I suspect and it looks as though the old jersey's are easier to grab and would be easier for an official to see a hold.

Maybe an out of the ballpark thought, but just an observation and wanted to see if anybody else noticed it too.



October 10th, 2011 at 3:43 PM ^

I am watching 2nd half right now and at the start of the 3rd Denard still is wearing the tech-fit and the only people I have noticed wearing the last years old piping jersey's have been the D-Line.

Edit: MFDoom_ corrected me and D-Robs apparently does get changed out in the latter stages of the game.


October 10th, 2011 at 3:33 PM ^

I think the new tech-fit or whatever they are called are supposed to be tighter.  I guess that a tighter fitting jersey would make it harder for the refs to see a holding call. 


October 10th, 2011 at 3:36 PM ^

Rivals mentioned that many of the jerserys (including Denards at one point) where switched out because they were over stretched and/or ripped. I don't know if it is a design flaw of the new jerseys, but it sure does make it clear that the DLine was getting held enough to cause their jerseys to get stretched to the point of needing to be changed.

kevin holt

October 10th, 2011 at 3:51 PM ^

I would think they would have backup jerseys, though. So either they decided not to ruin two sets of jerseys or it had to do with a difference in the jerseys, as other people have said.

Or maybe they don't bring backup jerseys. But that doesn't seem right.


October 10th, 2011 at 3:46 PM ^

I wondered if anyone else noticed the  older jerseys. It was weird that some had the older jerseys on and some didnt, even on the offensive side of the ball. Check you DVR but i think Denard had the yellow piping jersey on as well.


October 10th, 2011 at 3:48 PM ^

Maybe they switched the jersey fitting to see if the defense wouldn't be able to tackle Fitz by streching his jersey for 10 yards like Minnesota did, but of course, Fitz never really gave them a chance to try to catch him from behind.


October 10th, 2011 at 3:59 PM ^

Brandstatter said that at least two of the defensive players had jerseys that were damaged in some fashion, and that was very early in the game. It sounded like someone ended up with a piece of jersey in their hand. That doesn't mean they were holding, of course, it might have just materialized there. I'm pretty sure a couple of players arms were stretched a bit during the game too.

Wolverine Devotee

October 10th, 2011 at 4:17 PM ^

The adidas TechFit jerseys are really tight and kept getting torn off the players practically. I like them much better than the old ones. Design-wise. I assume the players do too if they wanted to wear them this season.

Bando Calrissian

October 10th, 2011 at 4:19 PM ^

Keep in mind the players themselves vetoed the TechFit jerseys last season because they didn't fit correctly.  Not surprising in the least, especially for the first time we've worn the whites this season, that Big Jon would pack an alternate set.

And I can't be the only one who noticed last week especially that our guys were tackled not an insignificant number of times by a guy grabbing the tail of their jersey and hauling them down like they were wearing a big rubber band.  That needs some adjustment for sure.

Blue in Seattle

October 10th, 2011 at 4:38 PM ^

You noticed something, but I'm not sure what your conclusion was. The implication seems to be there were more holding calls, but you don't provide any data stating that is your conclusion. I remember the commentators stating that Denard's change was caused by a torn jersey. Also it would be logical that tighter fitting jerseys provide less material for someone to hold onto, thus I would expect less holding to occur with the first jerseys. But is the Dline was being grabbed as much as Denard and had to change their jerseys for the same reason, then I would expect that just shows that Northwestern was indeed grabbing a hold of players jerseys alot. But I don't remember a lot of holdings calls at any point in the game.


October 10th, 2011 at 6:23 PM ^

I noticed a shitload of holding going on by Northwestern, though I have to admit that most of what I saw was on the edge by the Wildcat receivers (since most of their passes are of the quick-out variety my attention immediately shifted away from the trenches).

Man, do they love some holding out there on the edge.

Mr. Yost

October 10th, 2011 at 8:01 PM ^

I don't know if this was the issue...BUT...I do know last year the reason we didn't switch to the jerseys when everyone else did was because the bigger linemen didn't like them. They said it was too tight and many of them had trouble breathing and recovering because they were so tight.

This is why if you go back to the old videos, you'd see Denard and skill position players wearing them, but the lineman never wore them.


Once again, I have NO CLUE as to what happened on Saturday. But I do know the reason they didn't wear them last year. Particularly in the bowl game.


October 11th, 2011 at 1:41 AM ^

Not sure why, but I have noticed that they (most of the D line, especially RVB) have had the old jerseys on towards the end of most of the games this year. If you go back and look at pictures, you can tell the difference between the new jerseys and the old ones. I've noticed it in several games, mostly with the d line but not exclusively.