[ChuckElias]

I don't usually respond to Rut's posts anymore, but he is exactly right in one respect, and quite incorrect in another. He is exactly right that wearing a belt is like wearing a shirt with a collar. Both are perfectly legal to wear, according to the rulebook. You can find both in many places (although certainly not as easily as finding the "newer" fashions).

But wearing the Byron collar is "passe". It's old news, old fashions. And the perception (particularly among other officials) is that the official wearing them doesn't care enough to keep current with the rest of the officiating world.

Wearing a belt, however, is not a sign that "you do not pay attention to detail on many other aspects of your officiating". I have known a couple (but only a couple) very good college officials at the D3/D2 level who wore a belt and never made the transition to beltless pants. But what it does is that it gives the perception that you don't care to keep current. There's a big difference; although I'm sure someone will make the claim that perception is reality.

If Rut had said that wearing a belt gives the perception that you don't pay attention to detail, instead of saying that it "shows" the same, then I would agree entirely with his comments.

My $.02