Pants: Sansabelt vs. Smitty
 

I have always worn Sansabelt flat front, size 40. They are always a little tight on the thighs and loose on the waist so I order 40 and have the live in tailor take the waist in about two inches. They look sharp that way.

My question for those who have worn both: Smittys are cheaper and I have been thinking of trying them. How do the compare in size to Sansabelts? Do they run smaller, bigger, same at the waist? Thigh? Is the quality comparable?

I own both. I think Sansabelt all the way. But it appears the the Smitty kind are made by the same company as there is a Sanabelt waist band inside of the Smitty brand. Both are almost the same (at least they were when I bought them).

Peace

If you ever officiate in a pair of pleated slacks, you'll never go back to the flat front.

Why do you say that? I have both and prefer the flat front.

There's always the one odd bird.

Caveat Emptor
 

Just got a new pair of flat-front Smitty's in last week. Went to a larger waist size, 36, and was surprised how baggy the legs were. A few bucks to the local tailor lady, and overnight she brought the legs in so that they're just right now. She also let out my Sansibelt to give them a little more room, so my back up pants are even better than before.
First experience with Smitty's, but I like 'em. Though I alternate between them and my Sansibelt every other game now.
Thanx for the tip for officialschoice.com's sale last week. Nice shirt for 10.00. Postage was 8.61, but still a good deal for the price.

Not a smitty fan
 

I guess I should do the same as Freddy...I don't like how baggy the Smitty's are. They are also lighter in weight than Sansabelts. I feel when I run that the bottom of the pants come up above my socks, so I need the legs taken in, which I really don't want to pay for. I may just spend the $40-$50 for Sansabelt pleated and get them hemmed.

I wear Sansabelts.

However, I've seen the Smitty's up close and they look very close to the Sansabelts.

Same complaint with the Smittys, legs are too baggy. I like em otherwise.

My new Smittys have very little elastic in the waistband, they almost feel like cardboard compared to the old Sansabelts. I was told it's a new waistband construction and it's not going to change going forward. The Smittys also seem to have disproportionately wide thighs. I really prefer my Sansabelts.

Pleats are goofy looking. all of my dress pants are flat front.

I Get Them Special Made ...
 

My pants have a very obvious, large, bulge in the front. It's to attract hot, single moms. For some reason, the pants don't seem to be workng. Must be my tailor's fault?

Flat front pants scream out (to me) the same way that a belt does. Other regions and viewpoints may vary.

Like all matters of style, this wheel continues to turn. Right now, to advance and to look proper you wear pleats and no belt. If you stay in it more than 20 years, you'll see it change. :shrug:

Are White Shoes And Socks Appropriate To Officiate In After Labor Day ???
 

Yeah? Right? In twenty years I'll be so old that I'll be wearing my belt up around my nipples.

That will work out, if your nipples are down around your knees.

This does mean one thing, though -- you should stay with the latest trends for wherever you are. If you're the only one wearing a belt or flat front pants or using a pea whistle, why be that guy?

Bought my first pair of Smitty's earlier this season. Honestly, I don't see a big difference with Sansabelt in terms of quality or fit, so I'll probably stick with Smitty's at the lower price. The Smitty's seem to run a little smaller in the waist so I didn't have to have them taken in this pair (saved $$$ there too).

I'll look at them at the end of the season to see if they held up as well after the repeated laundering.

Are there still officials who use a pea whistle?

After All, It's Christmas ...
 

Hey. Let's not encourage Mark Padgett. Let's have no posts about the first rule of officiating.

There's one guy I've worked with in the past who (I think) uses a pea whistle and wears a belt mainly to annoy other officials.

Okay, this makes me laugh.

Either that, or you'll have Dunlap syndrome. That's where your stomach dun lap over your pants. I suffer from that now. ;)

I had somebody tell me once that he didn't have "dunlap disease", cuz he wasn't done lapping over his belt. :D

So I shouldn't get rid of my Byron collared shirts?

We have one of those in our association. Very good official, funny with a quick dry wit. Loves if someone asks him about the whistle or the belt, they become the butt of his wit the rest of the evening. :rolleyes:

The pealess whistle literally speaks for itself. It's a matter of superior tone and volume. (It's easier to hear) If there is no specific dress code, but we should
"wear beltless pants if we wish to advance," I don't get that.

Because it looks more professional. You had to go out and buy a pair of pants that fit and you can run in. Wearing a belt suggests you just went around to your local Wal-Mart and picked up a pair of pants. The same as it looks silly as a football and baseball umpire to not buy at hat that fits and use and adjustable hat. It is about perception and when you are the only person doing that, this questions what other things you might have cut corners on. People are looking for "why not" not "why."

Peace

Give Them Back To mbyron ...
 

No. Return them.

That has nothing to do with it. Belted pants are not less professional. Byron collar shirts are not less professional. Shirts with side panels are not less professional. These are just fashion issues, in a few years everything will have changed again.

He didn't say it was more professional. He said it looks more professional, and he's right. Like it or not, it looks more professional to do as the majority does. That's true for the kind of pants you wear, whether you get patent leather, what kind of lanyard you use, whether you have side panels, which patches you wear, whether you wear glasses on the court, etc.

Jeff's right, perception matters.

That is an opinion, not a fact, but apparently an opinion that is widely held.
So make it a part of the requirement.
I believe what we have says: Pants shall be black. A belt, if worn shall be black. That's it.
If the scheme of things actually is "Wear a belt if you want, but others will get more/better games," I think that is a bad policy.


I think they have beltless pants at Wal-Mart.

How close does one have to get to even tell whether you have on a fitted cap, let alone notice, let alone care.

That is just fashion. The majority of the big time guys on TV people wear beltless pants. Everyone sees this on TV so they wear them too. They are just following the fashion trends they see on TV. This is no different than wearing the same type of clothes you see a movie star wearing.

What is, or is not, considered professional is "a fashion issue."

And, the current fashion is that they are more professional.

I agree that in the future this likely will not be so.

Yep, it's fashion. And the preception is that professionals adhere to the current "fashion." When the fashion changes, the perception will still be that professionals adhere to the current fashion. For the most part, it's local, too.

In my last metro area, pretty much everyone wore belted pants. I did a varsity game with the president of the local association and he wore belted pants. It wasn't an issue there; and yes, I got my pants from Walmart.

Here, it would be a last resort. Last year we got a nasty-gram from the assocation regarding the side-panel shirts (a no-no). Other areas don't care.

As someone who works football and baseball, I'll say this: If I see an baseball umpire or a football official with an adjustable hat, it's fairly safe to say I won't be getting a top notch official in that game. There will be exceptions to prove the rule, sure. But for the most part....

And with FlexFit hats quite prevalent these days, it's not that hard to get a hat that *looks* like a fitted hat even if it technically isn't.

This seems to be the type of opinion that is held by people in my area who never advance. They think that things like this shouldn't matter so they do not need to do what other who are advancing do. It might be an arbitrary standard and you may not agree with it, but if that is what people are doing, play the game. Refusing to play the game because you don't like the game will not help you. I tell officials who are trying to climb the ladder that you want to stand out, but only for your abilities, never for your uniform.

If it is as simple as you will not advance without beltless (or pleated or whatever) pants...GET THE RIGHT PANTS. This is something that is very easy and is in your control. Trying to move up the ladder is so much about things that you cannot control. Control the things you can and help yourself. If you don't want to play the game, don't complain when you lose.

+1
It applies to the rest of life as well.

I'm amused by the guys who think that, because fashion shouldn't matter, they can single-handedly make it not matter by declining to follow it. :cool:

Some that decline to follow it in the name of principle, wouldn't get a better schedule if they did follow it. They simply use the uniform/appearance as a scapegoat for the reason they don't get better games.

There are exceptions, I suppose? Who would look better/more professional?

Felix Unger with a belt, or Oscar Madison without one. :Dhttp://www.multiplaying.net/wp-conte...010/01/toc.jpg

Well it is a fact that people will make judgments about you and anyone based on their appearance and what you wear. It applies to a guy trying to get a date a woman or a person going to a job interview. I am not going to try to impress a woman by looking like a slop on a date and I am not going to go to a job interview in blue jeans and tennis shoes. And I am certainly not going to work a basketball game with belted pants when everyone else is not wearing them. ;)


I am sure they do. But I doubt they sell the brand that most officials use or you can buy at Honigs, Gerry Davis Sports or any number of officiating outlets sell. Just like I would not buy a officiating shirt from Wal-Mart, Target or some named sporting good store, I would not buy pants from them either.

Actually they do care and they do not have to be close. They can look at your uniform. Just like people can tell someone has sweats on instead of the black pants sold at the places I mentioned for football. Just like I could tell an official was wearing black jeans and not officiating pants years ago. And yes it was reflected in his officiating (surprise!!!!! :eek:).

Peace

It is in my boards constitution that one must use a fox 40. They don't care if it is a mini, classic, or sonik but it's gotta be a fox.

I talk with lower level officials and I've frequently had guys ask where we buy our pants. I give them the names of official supply houses and brands and then they ask how much the pants cost. When I tell them, they say something like "Walmart is good enough for me." I can tell. Maybe the average fan can't, but when people's pants have white pockets that show when they run up and down the court, an official certainly can. Part of this game is credibility and yes, I want to be seen as credible by other officials and my partners.

I would never dream of buying an officiating shirt "off the rack" at Dick's Sporting Goods or another one of those places that sells the 30-grit polyester shirt that would've been stylish in 1977. Times have changed. We do get paid for this gig and expecting us to spend a couple hundred dollars a season to buy decent pants, shirts, and shoes isn't too much to ask, really.

When You Assume ...
 

Are these names mixed up, or have I been drinking too much nog?

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

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...een-games.html

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

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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? :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

Beltless: Disgraceful style, but good on the court
 

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

Not everyone agrees that what should be or what should not be on the shoes. I have worn shoes with little logos for some years now and no one seems to care. But shoes are always going to be a personal thing as we all do not have the same needs or comfort level. And considering that you can hardly find a pair of shoes that are all black or leather this is not a universal issue.

Peace

This is the key to this whole thread. I have worn a belt for 20 something seasons and nobody seems to care. The only time I ever heard pants mentioned at an association meeting, the assignor said something like, "Look professional out there guys. Get some slacks. Don't go out there in wind pants." I assumed this meant that somebody had worn wind pants at some point. As far as all looking alike, one guy expressed an interest in this subject this year. We should all have the same jacket, (we do, I think) and we should all wear the same shoes. He has patent leather. This will never happen.

Just keep in mind it appears that your area is unusual that way based on this site and based on some experiences of others including myself. Or could it be that no one says anything to you directly, but they say things around you about this issue (or others)? I know the only time I mention this is during trainings with newer officials so they know what is expected of them. Other than that no one needs to mention it because when someone wears belted pants, it is stands out big time. And no one necessarily goes up to that person and points it out. But when you have belted pants I look at that like I look at those that do not apply certain mechanics. No different than I look at a guy that goes to a varsity game in jeans, but that is me.

Peace

Sorry to spark this thread again... but if you are looking...

Purchase Officials PA has a pretty good deal on Sansabelts: 2 pairs for $79.00.

Damn, that's a pretty good deal. Wish you had posted this yesterday as I just ordered a pair from between the lines.

As for the original topic of the thread, I'd have to say that Smitty's are very good as a cheaper alternative to the Sansabelt but when it comes to quality the Sansabelt's hold up a little better over time.

Skipping through some of these posts are amusing.

I am the beltless, patent leather shoe kinda guy...no white logos on shoes.

Heck, I even carry around pleated and non-pleated beltless pants when I really want to match the crew.

I was watching a JV official the other day who was wearing pants that had belt loops with no belt! I gave him some positive reinforcement after the game...then mentioned that he might want to at least get a belt or go with beltless pants...he looked at me like he was insulted.

My first State playoff game...I had a partner (two whistle) that showed up with pants that had loops and HE HAD NO BELT! I asked him if he was kidding...he immediately went to town and bought a belt...sigh...yes, I was in trouble.

How did this kid make it to the State Tourney you ask?

(His Dad was the assignor for a small association in the State...):mad:

Maybe this is an indication of how things are around here. When my partner and I arrived for games earlier this week, the JV game was in progress. I didn't know they were having JV. Usually the same crew does all the games. Perhaps this was a $$ thing. One official had on a collared shirt, white shoes, and khaki colored pants. His partner......oops, he had no partner. He missed a couple of calls, I thought, but I didn't see that his pants were an issue.

His pants may not have been an issue, but if someone shows up to ref in khaki pants, do you really think he's taking this reffing thing seriously?

It tells me he does not take the other stuff seriously if he/she cannot take the time to go buy some pants that are considered the most professional. There was a guy I saw that once worked in black jeans and his officiating reflected his lack of professional uniform. He looked like crap and his officiating was crap to. Sorry you do not go to a job interview in a ripped T-shirt and torn jeans for the same reason. It tells something about you and your professionalism that may not need further review in the job you do as you have told the people that are involved you do not care.

Also I remember a coach in the State Tournament that wore sweats in all of his games that he coached. Guess what everyone commented about? Not his coaching, not his demeanor, his sweats and how bad it looked. Imagine what everyone would think if we did the same? ;)

Peace

He obviously wasn't. I sorta know the guy. He came over and talked to us at halftime. It turns out that he is one of the jr. high coaches at that school. My point was that I saw his uniform, said "This guy is not a real ref," then went on to judge his performance on its own merit, which, under the circumstances, I thought was pretty good. Conversely, if I had come in and seen a perfectly dressed crew of 2 or 3, but they sucked as officials, I may or may not have noticed how they were dressed, but would have surely noticed if they sucked as officials. Is appearance important? Definitely. Is it as important as the performance on the floor? I say definitely not.

I went to a varsity tourney tonight as a spectator. I made a point of looking at the pants. Near as I could tell, only one guy out of four had a belt, but I could not even see that he had a belt until he stopped 5 feet in front of me. Other than the extremely narrow, extremely inconspicuous belt, the pants looked identical to me. But if that's important,..........

No one, and I mean no one, has said it's more important than performance.

Oh?

I prefer wearing a belt and pants with no belt loops.

Channeling Their Inner Sue Sylvester ???
 

I've been around the block a few times, so I remember when coaches wore ties, and jackets, during games. It's taken me a while to get used to coaches wearing "business casual" (school logo polo shirts, khaki pants) but I've come to accept that this still looks professional. I cannot get used to the few coaches we have in our area that go down one step further, sweat suits. To me this is "practice wear". It's not like they're going to call timeout in a game, bring their team over to the nearest basket, and demonstrate the over under move.

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...c6f4&index=ch1

Being dressed properly gets you the benefit of the doubt on the first close call. After that, it is up to the performance of the referee. That's all most of us are saying. But, don't minimize the value of that benefit of the doubt.

I'm guessing here, but I think Rich's point is that someone who cares about the whole package is less likely to be a problem partner. He's more likely to accept constructive critique. He's less likely to go fishing because that travel had to be called (even though it was wrong because he didn't see the fumble). Your partner knowing the rules won't prevent him from calling what he thinks is a double dribble right in front of you; taking the craft seriously does that.

And the first and most obvious sign of whether he takes it seriously is whether he knows which pants/shirt/shoes/whistle to buy.

The funny thing about that it was not officials that pointed out his clothes, it was fans and people that did not even know much about coaching personally and they felt he looked unprofessional. So if fans that had no association with his team noticed this and were taken aback by his clothes, what do you think a fan might notice about us? But to JAR I guess we can show up in anything and not be expected to be judged accordingly.

Peace

There is a lot of slack between "being appropriately attired" and "showing up in anything." If I had a partner show up to call varsity games in black jeans, I, too, would be taken aback. Both sides have overstated their positions on this issue. I am extremely guilty of that here, as well as other times. I have stepped back and looked more closely at myself recently. There is much room for improvement. But, is it the fans we are concerned about here? Seriously, at the games last night, I made it a point to look and was uncertain. Take a poll of the fans with the following question.

Were the officials last night wearing belts?

A. yes
B. no
C. didn't notice
D. What difference does it make?

Not relevant. You could also poll them about whether the officials were in proper positions on free throws, throwins, or the jump ball and they wouldn't have a clue.

Who Gives A Damn About The Fans ???
 

I don't give a rat's derrière about the fans. I care about my partner, first, the kids second, and the coaches, third. There is no fourth.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...5f0d&index=ch1

First of all I do not feel I have overstated anything. I am simply saying that this is a factor in what I may judge an official and what others might. Just like they will look at the fitness of an official and make judgments. If I was working a game and I had a very bad limp and my shirt was hanging out because it did not fit (something I have seen this year) people observing (officials, coaches, administrators and fans) might make judgments about your officiating. And if it is the right people they may not give you a second chance to make the right impression. And yes it can if that person is an evaluator, a fellow official (in my area we can rate other officials) or a coach that might say who he likes and why. It does make a difference too many because it is stated in so many areas that this looks bad. You may not agree, but unless you are the person that makes decisions your opinion is not the one we have to be worried about. Just like to some certain facial hair, tattoos or haircut will matter if they are choosing who they will hire. But as you say no one judges us by anything about our officiating right? ;)

Peace

Okay, one more question, then I'm done. I went back to the same tournament tonight. Different 3 man crew. One definitely had no belt. One definitely had a belt. The other, I actually still don't know. All 3 were, by my standards at least impeccably dressed. The guy with the belt and the guy that I never could tell about both had their shirts tucked loosely enough that they had little slack hanging down which obscured the belt line the great majority of the time.
Perhaps this was done by design for this purpose, but in any case it was neat, even, and in no way detrimental to the overall appearance. The question is, to those who draw such lines, if the belt is still an unforgivable burden, even when it is this close to invisible.

FWIW I don't think I've seen anyone in my area with a belt on in four years. I have only seen two or three guys with flat front pants. 99.9 percent of the guys/ladies around here wear pleated, beltless pants.

I do not recall that anyone said this was a deal breaker or unforgivable. I think most of of said that it tells us something about that official. That is it and that is all. Just like the guy that is overweight and belly is hanging over their pants. It may not tell the entire story, but people will assume they cannot get up and down the floor. And the first time they do not get in position (which is sometimes a perception not a reality) someone seems to comment about that official's weight.

Peace

I hope so. You didn't put a question in your post, so go ahead and ask it. Maybe there was a typo in your last statement.

It seems as though your area doesn't have a de-facto standard on belts. In that case, those with and without belts will generally be viewed the same.

That's not true in many other areas.

It's kind of like the switch from shirts with collars to shirts without. No one officiated better just because they boutght a shirt without a collar. But, after a couple of years, if you saw one official with a collar and one without, your first impression would be that the official without the collar just didn't care about his/her officiating.

...I'm sure you meant WITH...


btw...watched some rookies last night...two belts one beltless...one guy had NO Socks and too little of a shirt, was always untucked...whew!

Am I crazy?
 

Just ordered a new pair of Sansabelts from Between the Lines and the inside pockets are white and the buttons are brown/cream colored.

I'm at work now but I'm pretty sure my other Sansabelts and Smitty's have black inside pockets and black buttons. Am I crazy?

My new Smitty pants have white pockets, too, albeit with a black opening so that it's not possible (unless they fit very poorly) to see the white pocket.

I'm guessing those are the proper pants, although I can't understand how hard it would be to use black everywhere.

I do not know of a single pair of pants that I have that do not have white pockets or a brown/cream color button.

Peace

Yup. Just looked at my Smitty pants and the button is definitely not black. Something one just doesn't notice, I guess, until one notices it. :D

Just don't do a button check in pre-game tonight.

So I am crazy
 

Thanks for the responses and confirming that I am crazy.