NCAA referee shoe

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by Rich

White markings on shoes is distracting?

The judger is the person doing the hiring. Apparently, it's OK with that person or I'm guessing he wouldn't be wearing them

Apparently, it is. Perhaps I need to spell it out more simply next time but my second post clearly stated that I was not commenting on that guy in that instance. If its fine with his group then by all means he can wear whatever they allow. I was commenting on those who are in associations, chapters, states, etc. that have requirements that they do not follow, which is not professional. And, for the record, in THOSE instances it is still unprofessional even if the one doing the hiring continues to hire them. It is on us to be professionals at all times and I expect my co-officials in my chapter to do exactly that -- not because it affects their ability to do the job but because it may affect their perceived ability do the job (I say this as an ex coach who could tell within miutes of seeing a crew who I would be "working" to get those 50/50 calls to go my way).

So, to recap:

1) original post asked about shoes
2) a joke was made about them being black
3) I posted about D1 official who wore blk/wht (remember, HE has said "never do that")

I will make an effort in the future to write posts that leave less room for feelings to get hurt.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Rich1

I will make an effort in the future to write posts that leave less room for feelings to get hurt.

Is this a joke? Must be.

[Dexter555]

Mmcfadden--welcome to the forum! Clearly there are some strong opinions on the topic of your first post. Basically you can never go wrong with all black. There is no one brand/model that is recommended or mandated. Find one that feels good to you. If you choose a shoe with white trim, some don't care, some will make a snap judgment about not only your shoes but your skills. You can also run afoul of your assignor/association, so proceed at your own risk.

There are other threads here on recommended shoes, but the search function isn't so great. Try this: go to Google and in the search bar type "site:forum.officiating.com/basketball shoe recommendation" (without the quotes) and you'll find several threads. Good luck!

[LRZ]

If you are required to wear all-black and you need a specific shoe with white markings because fit is an issue, black out the white design. Simple, no?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by LRZ

If you are required to wear all-black and you need a specific shoe with white markings because fit is an issue, black out the white design. Simple, no?

Yep, but the simple fact is, not many require all black any more. They may say it, we've been told to have "all black", but when I ask about my Zigs everyone is ok (they have them anyway).

"All" means different things to different people, apparently.

It never hurts to ask.

Judging other officials based on this, though, is ridiculous unless you're privy to the relationship between that official and his supervisor.

[Multiple Sports]

At the college level, it is about the green. Years ago the CIAA had a contract with Reebok ( I think ) and the story is that an official had on a pair of Nike's with a big white swoosh. Jim Burch came into the lockeroom at half time and had the official darken the swoosh.....

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Multiple Sports

At the college level, it is about the green. Years ago the CIAA had a contract with Reebok ( I think ) and the story is that an official had on a pair of Nike's with a big white swoosh. Jim Burch came into the lockeroom at half time and had the official darken the swoosh.....

So Reebok gave $ to the schools in the conference, but unless the officials were also being sponsored or signed something stating which shoes they would or wouldn't wear, then they are under no direct obligation. One could make the argument for indirect obligation as the conference is paying the officials. However, any argument based upon "better do what the assignor says or you may well lose games or even be dropped from the conference" amounts to nothing more than coercion.

Several years ago I was at a regional youth soccer event. One of the sponsors for the tournament was either Nike, Adidas, or Reebok,--I can't recall which--and after we arrived at the site there was a referee meeting at which the administrator stated that all of us were to wear only that brand of shoes!

There were no fees for the games. The individual states had paid to transport the officials, cover the hotel, and some food money.

I asked my state rep if the tournament would be providing shoes for those of us who normally wore another brand or funds for us to go purchase the desired shoes. When the answer came back in the negative, I let the rep know that I wouldn't be wearing the desired shoes as that info was not part of the tournament's preparation packet and it was unacceptable to be informed of such on-site. The tournament could remove me from any assignments, if so desired.
About six other refs from my state agreed.

I guess several other people must have been in the same position and the tournament couldn't replace us all because the next morning we were all told to work the games in whatever shoes we had.

Clearly the referees were an afterthought to the event and the sponsorship deal.