Valentines shoes on ESPN

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

I am an old, old guy and one of the things that I am most sensitive about is the statement "he looks and calls like an old timey referee".

Mendy Rudolph. Is that you?

[just another ref]

I shouldn't have mentioned belts. It was an unnecessary and pointless distraction to the original thread. To me this is not about belts or shoes, but about rules, and the need to follow them and/or which ones truly "don't matter." A couple of posters referred to Valentine getting away with something, and at least one said nobody cares, I think. Which leads to questions. Is he truly getting away with something because of who he is, or could a rookie at this level wear any kind of shoe and be okay? And if he is allowed special privileges, do those of you here that call at the college level find that acceptable? I agree that it doesn't matter, and unless they're fluorescent or something, I'm unlikely to notice a partner's shoes. But if it truly doesn't matter, why is it in the books at all? Especially the part about being approved by an individual conference.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I shouldn't have mentioned belts. It was an unnecessary and pointless distraction to the original thread. To me this is not about belts or shoes, but about rules, and the need to follow them and/or which ones truly "don't matter." A couple of posters referred to Valentine getting away with something, and at least one said nobody cares, I think. Which leads to questions. Is he truly getting away with something because of who he is, or could a rookie at this level wear any kind of shoe and be okay?

First of all there are no rules that even discuss the shoes. In Rule 2-1-2, there is no mention of any shoes or the color of those shoes. Only words about the shirt, the stripes size on that shirt and logos and national flag being permitted on the sleeve. Nothing about shoes. The CCA Manual is not a rulebook. It is a manual made up with the consolation of the supervisors and the NCAA to set some standards or expectations.

Originally Posted by just another ref

And if he is allowed special privileges, do those of you here that call at the college level find that acceptable? I agree that it doesn't matter, and unless they're fluorescent or something, I'm unlikely to notice a partner's shoes. But if it truly doesn't matter, why is it in the books at all? Especially the part about being approved by an individual conference.

This is not a Teddy only issue. I work college and have for some time and many officials wear shoe with some white or grey on their shoes. I have no issue if people are allowed to do that if their supervisors do not care. It is also very hard to find comfortable shoes for many. I have shoes that I wear sometimes that has some white on them. Never been told to stop wearing them. Been to many camps where several officials have shoes with some white or gray on them. I do not recall anyone ever saying a word about them.

Peace

[stripes]

Originally Posted by just another ref

But if there is a rule in the book for D-1 officials shoes, but some choose to disregard it "because they can get away with it," why is that okay?

Because that is how life works. Deal with it. Its not fair and never will be.