Zig Zag Help ???

[Rich]

Originally Posted by constable

belt? This is a joke, right?

Sadly enough, Billy like to brag that he wears a belt when he officiates basketball. Apparently in his corner of the world, this doesn't brand him as a guy that has no clue how to dress for a game.

Originally Posted by Rich

Sadly enough, Billy like to brag that he wears a belt when he officiates basketball. Apparently in his corner of the world, this doesn't brand him as a guy that has no clue how to dress for a game.

I don't see what the fuss is about. My state association has a master document full of uniform requirements for every sport. Under basketball it says "belt, if worn, must be black".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I don't see what the fuss is about. My state association has a master document full of uniform requirements for every sport. Under basketball it says "belt, if worn, must be black".

Acceptable and advisable are not always the same.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Acceptable and advisable are not always the same.

We get it. Billy likes his belts. No need to bring it up all the time.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

We get it. Billy likes his belts. No need to bring it up all the time.

Right, he doesn't need to bring it up.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

Sadly enough, Billy like to brag that he wears a belt when he officiates basketball. Apparently in his corner of the world, this doesn't brand him as a guy that has no clue how to dress for a game.

It's not bragging. It's a running commentary on the credo, "When in Rome ...", that seems to permeate throughout the officiating world.

What mystifies me, in reference to belts, is how some seem to follow the credo, and accept the fact that belts can be considered acceptable in some, but certainly not all, places ...

Originally Posted by AremRed

I don't see what the fuss is about. My state association has a master document full of uniform requirements for every sport. Under basketball it says "belt, if worn, must be black".

... while others strongly believe that this fashion choice makes someone somewhat less than a good official.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Acceptable and advisable are not always the same.

As I've stated several times, here in my little corner of Connecticut, black belts may be worn, and one's rating, and ranking, and number, and level of games assigned, does not depend on whether, or not, one wears a black belt. Locally, black belts are neither encouraged, not are they discouraged. I've worn a belt for thirty-two years. I'm comfortable in belt, I'm allowed, without penalty, to wear a belt, and the next time I buy pants, they will be belted ... until I'm told that the rules have changed and that we're no longer allowed to wear black belts, at which point I will purchase beltless pants. Same thing applies if I'm ever locally advised that my rating, and ranking, and number, and level of games assigned, will suffer if I continue to wear a black belt, in which case, I'll run to the store and buy beltless pants.

On the other hand, here in my little corner of Connecticut, we consider it completely unacceptable for our members to have any amount of white on an otherwise black shoe. Wearing shoes with white showing could effect one's rating, and ranking, and number, and level of games assigned. Rookie officials are cautioned not to purchase shoes with any white on them, or are advised to "paint over" the white. Yet, I would never criticize another area of the country, nor the officials in that area, where local rules allow some white to appear on the shoe.

I realize that everything in basketball officiating can't fall under, "When in Rome ...", but how an official dresses should fall under local, rather than international, or universal, guidelines.

Until you've walked a mile through my little corner of Connecticut in my 100% black shoes ...

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's not bragging. It's a running commentary on the credo, "When in Rome ...", that seems to permeate throughout the officiating world.

What mystifies me, in reference to belts, is how some seem to follow the credo, and accept the fact that belts can be considered acceptable in some, but certainly not all, places ...



... while others strongly believe that this fashion choice makes someone somewhat less than a good official.



As I've stated several times, here in my little corner of Connecticut, black belts may be worn, and one's rating, and ranking, and number, and level of games assigned, does not depend on whether, or not, one wears a black belt. Locally, black belts are neither encouraged, not are they discouraged. I've worn a belt for thirty-two years. I'm comfortable in belt, I'm allowed, without penalty, to wear a belt, and the next time I buy pants, they will be belted ... until I'm told that the rules have changed and that we're no longer allowed to wear black belts, at which point I will purchase beltless pants. Same thing applies if I'm ever locally advised that my rating, and ranking, and number, and level of games assigned, will suffer if I continue to wear a black belt, in which case, I'll run to the store and buy beltless pants.

On the other hand, here in my little corner of Connecticut, we consider it completely unacceptable for our members to have any amount of white on an otherwise black shoe. Wearing shoes with white showing could effect one's rating, and ranking, and number, and level of games assigned. Rookie officials are cautioned not to purchase shoes with any white on them, or are advised to "paint over" the white. Yet, I would never criticize another area of the country, nor the officials in that area, where local rules allow some white to appear on the shoe.

I realize that everything in basketball officiating can't fall under, "When in Rome ...", but how an official dresses should fall under local, rather than international, or universal, guidelines.

Until you've walked a mile through my little corner of Connecticut in my 100% black shoes ...

Do officials with belts work your state tournament?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Rich

Do officials with belts work your state tournament?

Is that really a deciding factor in your state?

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Is that really a deciding factor in your state?

I can certainly see where it would be. You have 2 officials with equal ratings, knowledge, evaluations, etc. There has to be a deciding factor. Whatcha gonna use? Appearance means things. Some places, wearing belts is very looked down upon. Look the part!!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

Some places, wearing belts is very looked down upon.

From what I can gather from the Forum, certainly not a very scientific poll, it's probably most, if not almost all, places, just not here in my local board.

Originally Posted by Rich

Right, he doesn't need to bring it up.

Yeah, he did mention it in the OP. However it was to let us know why he needed some plain leather Zigs. Other guys came in with the jokes, which are old and stale.

Billy is a vet, as many on this board are, and as long as he can run, make calls, and deal with coaches, his minor choice on uniform shouldn't be an issue.

Originally Posted by Rich

Do officials with belts work your state tournament?

Should that even be a factor? No.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Yeah, he did mention it in the OP. However it was to let us know why he needed some plain leather Zigs. Other guys came in with the jokes, which are old and stale.

Billy is a vet, as many on this board are, and as long as he can run, make calls, and deal with coaches, his minor choice on uniform shouldn't be an issue.


Should that even be a factor? No.

Billy is a vet, sure, but his mentioning of it here was purely a joke. He's the one who keeps mentioning it, ad nauseum.

Now, as to whether it should be a factor in determining whether one goes to the state tournament. How many officials work the state tournament in a Byron collar?

It's going to go into the same category as facial hair, girth, and glasses. Nothing says we can't wear glasses, but you just won't see many (if any) officials at that level wearing them.

Should it be that way? I don't know. It doesn't really matter to me. One could argue how you are dressed when you arrive on site should not matter, either, but it will (in most locales).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Billy is a vet, sure, but his mentioning of it here was purely a joke.

Not really a joke, just a tongue in cheek comment regarding the inability of many Forum members to realize that the "When in Rome ..." credo may not always be acceptable, but should be acceptable for a local area that neither encourages, nor discourages belt wearing, in both training, and in rating guidelines, especially when the IAABO mechanics manual doesn't even broach this subject (not sure about the NFHS mechanics manual).

"When in Rome ..." shouldn't be a universal guideline, set in stone, for all local areas, or states, to "make up" all their own rules. It probably wouldn't work if all officials in a particularly area decided to allow two extra steps in addition to the limits already set in the traveling rule. I'm sure that the basketball officiating world would go crazy criticizing that local change.

But a "When in Rome .." guideline on a belt, or no belt? Why can't some of you just let it go? I'm not saying that your local area, or state, should have the same belt, or beltless, guidelines that we use, I never have. I'm just saying that that's the way we do it here, and ponder why some of your can't accept that. I've never criticized those of you that belong to an association that allows some white on shoes, whereas we don't allow any white at all.

When in Rome ...

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Why can't some of you just let it go?

The main reason most can't let it go is because you keep bringing it up.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Is that really a deciding factor in your state?

Originally Posted by AremRed

Should that even be a factor? No.

It is a factor here. Not so much by the person that assigns the state tournament, but if the assignors will not give you games in the first place, yes it will affect your opportunities in the playoffs here at least. And I would suspect that is the case in a lot of places. Just like being bigger will affect you in the same way.