Pants: Sansabelt vs. Smitty

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The point I was trying to make is that I hope no one lets the exterior of the package overshadow the contents. The guy who declared the game over in the thread

Officials dismissed between games

is one from our association who does not wear a belt.

You may not get to the contents if you do not have a good looking outside package or what people see first.

Like someone said before, this is probably more of a local thing. But I can hold on one hand the times I see officials wearing a belt and every time I see this it clearly shows.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You may not get to the contents if you do not have a good looking outside package or what people see first.

Like someone said before, this is probably more of a local thing. But I can hold on one hand the times I see officials wearing a belt and every time I see this it clearly shows.

Peace

Yep, the guy with the great personality is still sitting at home Saturday nights.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You may not get to the contents if you do not have a good looking outside package or what people see first.

That statement alone is fair enough. But, back to the example of the other guy mentioned above. We've both been with the same association for about the same time. I'm the one everybody calls with their rules questions (no small thanks to this board) and he pulls a stunt like this. (among others) Now if this guy gets a playoff game and I don't and the reason given is "His pants look better," be it here or wherever, I find that disturbing.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

That statement alone is fair enough. But, back to the example of the other guy mentioned above. We've both been with the same association for about the same time. I'm the one everybody calls with their rules questions (no small thanks to this board) and he pulls a stunt like this. (among others) Now if this guy gets a playoff game and I don't and the reason given is "His pants look better," be it here or wherever, I find that disturbing.

It's my experience that you won't GET games based on something like this, but you'll never know the games you LOSE because of it. So why risk it?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

That statement alone is fair enough. But, back to the example of the other guy mentioned above. We've both been with the same association for about the same time. I'm the one everybody calls with their rules questions (no small thanks to this board) and he pulls a stunt like this. (among others) Now if this guy gets a playoff game and I don't and the reason given is "His pants look better," be it here or wherever, I find that disturbing.

I have never know a guy to get a game just because they are the go-to guy for rules. That guy you mentioned might be way too technical for someone's taste to hire them. I do know officials that get games because they can referee.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have never know a guy to get a game just because they are the go-to guy for rules.

To be sure, that alone is not enough. But which would you rather have on the floor, the guy who knows the game shouldn't be over, or the guy with the nicer pants?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

To be sure, that alone is not enough. But which would you rather have on the floor, the guy who knows the game shouldn't be over, or the guy with the nicer pants?

Those are not mutually exclusive categories. And I'd rather have the guy with the nicer pants as a partner, cause *I* know the rules.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Those are not mutually exclusive categories. And I'd rather have the guy with the nicer pants as a partner, cause *I* know the rules.

The fact that you know the rules won't keep your partner with the nice pants from calling a travel from the lead, 2 man, on a player who fumbled the ball near the top of the key, 10 feet from you.

The aforementioned guy did that to me once.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

To be sure, that alone is not enough. But which would you rather have on the floor, the guy who knows the game shouldn't be over, or the guy with the nicer pants?

They do not have the have nicer pants, just the pants style everyone else is wearing. And I know the game enough (and I am often a guy that gets asked rules questions by my positions I hold) to get through a game and not let something crazy happen.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The fact that you know the rules won't keep your partner with the nice pants from calling a travel from the lead, 2 man, on a player who fumbled the ball near the top of the key, 10 feet from you.

The aforementioned guy did that to me once.

I'd still rather work with a guy that knows which pants to buy. If I see someone in Dockers and a belt, I just assume he's going to stink on the floor, cause he probably will.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'd still rather work with a guy that knows which pants to buy. If I see someone in Dockers and a belt, I just assume he's going to stink on the floor, cause he probably will.

Because he does not have enough sense to find out what he/she should wear, I doubt they are going to find out the difference between a live ball and a dead ball.

Peace

[just another ref]

For the record, if the style of pants is an issue where I work, I am blissfully unaware of it. I honestly do not know how many wear belts or not, I'm thinking it is close to an even split. Is appearance an issue? Of course. Is it more important than knowing whether the game should be over or not?

If an association wants all officials to match, simple, it should specify the brand, the style, whatever it takes. If that same association allows all kinds, but favors officials who wear one because someone (who?) said it looks better, that is a bad policy. If that same association penalizes an official for anything, without at least letting it be known that that one thing is discouraged, I find that unacceptable.

[fullor30]

Saw a crew in Chicago area last week for a girls tourney, all had belted pants.

First thought was they were from Wisconsin (sorry Rich) or central Illinois. It was the latter. The dads I was sitting with caught it right away. It just sticks out. To make it worse one official had a fifties do wop haircut along with a shirt one size too large with no black shirt underneath to cover up his cashmere sweater chest hair..........not a good look.



A wide belt(along with a blue work shirt) was great for Hootenannys in the sixties, not for trying to look professional.

[VaTerp]

On the beltless vs belt thing I have to say I'm surprised that people are actually making a case for wearing belts. Ever since I started officiating as an undergrad student in the late 90s I was taught that belts were a a no-go.

I don't think it's arbitrary either. And I don't think it's likely to change any time soon or really at all. There is a reason all higher level officials go beltless. It's a cleaner, more athletic look.

I have worked in 3 different states and the only guys who wear belts have been some older officials working sub varsity games or a rookie official working sub-varsity games. And after watching them work a game you see why they are lower level officials and, as far as the older guys, will never do anything above JV.

The story about a beltless official not knowing a rule is irrelevant. Wearing the "right" pants does not make you a good official. And when a decision about assigning a high level game or moving up is being made you would think that the choice is being made amongst good officials. If one of those good officials wears a belt, you can be assured he will be passed up for another official who wears the right pants.

I would be curious to know where beltless pants arent the norm. I have friends who officiate in just about every region of the country and they have the same experience with belted officials. As soon as you see the belt, it's a huge red flag for other officials, coaches, players, and fans. It just looks amateurish.

[amusedofficial]

I think the reason the unbelted look is preferred, encouraged or demanded.it is not because there is no belt or it meets the hot moms' definition of good-looking, but because among those wearing belts there is a wide variety of styles, colors, widths and buckles that make them non-uniform; it is virtually impossile to achieve a uniform appearance with a variety of belts and pant styles in play

If you have a crew of two or three all wearing belted pants, each belt will be different. There is relatively little style difference among the major suppliers of non-belted pants, save the issue of pleated vs. non pleated which is no more different than baseball players choosing to wear pants to the ankles or knicker-style.

Shoes and lanyards are another matter; all of sports gives leeway for personal preference in shoes as long as basic parameters (i.e. all black, no logos) are met. And you'll never get me to use a lasso-style lanyard while working a game of overgrown adolescents who have flying arms and legs and varyign degrees or coordination. Let them break my clasp, not my neck.

Unbelted pants are, by default as much as style, the uniform and irrespective of how it got that way, its adoption by those working the higher ranks is really the only way to have officials who are uniform and thus professional in appearance. It's not about looking sharp (how "sharp" can one look in stripes) as much as it is about looking like a corps of officials, presumably one held to a set of standards, rather than a bunch of Janes and Joes off the street.

It matters because the evaluation of what we do is so subjective. MickeyMantle could make fun of the K.C. A's kelly green and fort knox gold colors ("they should be holding hands and singing") but three world championships put that issue to bed. We, on the other hand, are judged almost entirely by perception, if we dress in a predictible and unifrom style, our image improves and we are respected as what we are, trained people who take what they do seriously and who have standards that are enforced within the cadre of officials