[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's not a point of pride for me personally, it's about comfort, familiarity, and belonging to a local board that is flexible in some uniform issues. Maybe it is a point of pride that I belong to a local board that allows some flexibility in it's dress guidelines, my local board realizing that, although a proper uniform is an important part of officiating, it's not necessarily just "the clothes that make the (official)".

Over thirty two years I've seen officials move up the ladder with, and without belts, so I figured, why change. Many of our top officials, the ones that work the state championship games, still wear belted slacks, especially the more "mature" officials.

Well that might be correct and what you observe, but I do not recall most of of here ever suggesting that someone automatically would not move up because of them wearing a belt. But wearing a belt or any number of uniform items will make you stand out. It might not be in a positive way, but you will stand out. No one one the court is wearing a belt, so why would the officials wear one? It looks silly for that sport and when no one from the top to the bottom as a rule wears one, then why wear one. That is what a tailor is for to make them fit you perfectly if needed. People in my areas stopped wearing belts because of how bad they looked when you were the only one wearing them. I do not think it had anything directly to do with moving up or not moving up.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Several years ago, many officials on my local board started to use the Smitty lanyard, so I gave it a shot for a few games, but kept pulling on it, a bad habit from many, many, years of using a noose lanyard, and broke a few jersey loops, so I decided to go back, for good, to the noose lanyard, and not the one that hitches up to your neck, the old fashioned one that is "loose" all the way down to the whistle.

False equivalence, I have never heard or seen anyone care what kind of lanyard someone wears. I haven't warn a Smitty lanyard in years and cannot think that anyone even noticed.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Many years ago, we were forced to switch from the pea whistle, I think that it was a Acme Thunderer, to the Fox 40. I didn't like the larger size of the Fox 40 so I switched to the Mini Fox. After several games, I had a few partners, and observers, tell me that my whistle wasn't loud enough, so I went the Fox 40, and eventually got used to it, so you can teach an old dog new tricks.

Another false argument when the only issue with a whistle was sound. I worked with a guy that used a Fox Mini and I never heard him when the crowd got very loud. Who cares about style of your whistle if it makes enough noise to be heard when you need to be heard.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm not a flashy dresser, so I've tried to stay away from patent leather shoes. I'm getting to an age when I have to really start trying to take care of my feet, and everyone on my local board, as well as many on the Forum, have been raving about the Reebok Zigs, "they're light", "they're comfortable", etc. I finally relented and bought a pair of patent leather Zigs. I've only worn them once and the comfort more than balances out the flashy appearance of the patent leather, so it looks like I can live with shiny shoes.

People did not buy the shoes to be flashy. People bought the shoes because they were comfortable, period. That is why in several situations this year me and my partners were all in the Zigs because we all independently liked the shoe. No other reason. Honestly if I could have found a pair without the patented leather design I would have. And the shoes before that I had patented leather were comfortable too. I have never bought a shoe and only liked them because of how they look. They have to be comfortable first. I bought some Reebox years ago that were patented leather and I wore them twice. They are still sitting in my closet and I would never wear them again.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

There's another reason that I occasionally post about my conservative dress. I firmly believe that an official should be appropriately dressed, but there's more to a good official than unbelted slacks, Smitty lanyards, Fox 40 whistles, and shiny shoes. I also realize that flexibility in an official's uniform is not possible in many local associations, but it is in mine, and I'm lucky that I can take advantage of the flexibility in our local dress code, where many of you are not so fortunate. If I were on a local board with less flexible dress guidelines, then I, like many of you, would be wearing unbelted slacks, Smitty lanyards, and shiny shoes.

Once again, as we've heard so many times on the Forum, "When in Rome ...".

Again, I do not believe that anyone has said "you must wear this or else." Most of these discussions or items you have brought up have been about personal preferences, even with pants styles. I think the western flat front pants look bad, but that does not stop anyone from wearing them or working big games because of them. Actually all these things you talk about are minor if you can officiate, but most people have no problem changing. You are not the only one that started wearing one kind of uniform and as time changed we changed or move to something else. We all know that some things might be local and certain areas might have some preferences, but I have never heard anyone say you will not work a single game because you have (fill in the blank) item. My associations have absolutely no say over what we wear because they do not hire us to do anything and hire people outside of association affiliations in the vast majority of cases for HS games, but you will be judged as an individual and if you look a certain way for all kinds of reasons, that is what is going to hold you back, not one item in your uniform.

Peace