Black Pants Lions vs Cowboys

[IceGator8]

Originally Posted by Welpe

There has been some interesting commentary about this on the various officiating forums. It seems there are a number of football officials that dislike the knickers. This surprises me a bit as I really like the look of knickers and striped socks but then I am a bit old fashioned.

I can respect that. However, I think knickers are antiquated. Believe it or not I used to wear them snow skiing when I was a kid (I'm only 37). Back then you could still buy wool knickers and I thought they would be cool. It turns out my regular pants were much better.

[Welpe]

I'm only 24 so knickers are especially antiquated for my generation; however, I still like the look of them (goes back to that whole old fashioned thing).

I do wonder how the pants are working from a functional aspect? It seems with the nature of football, there would be a greater chance for the pant legs to snag on a player. In my case, I'd be worried about tripping over them.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by IceGator8

However, I think knickers are antiquated.

How can a uniform part that was the only one authorized just two years ago, and still being worn today be "antiquated?" It's not a computer.

We need a better sense of time and history.

[Reffing Rev.]

If we are going to add black pants for comfort reasons can we also add shorts for comfort reasons, especially for those early August games.

[Welpe]

As long as the pasty white legs that match the color of the shorts are not included.

[IceGator8]

Originally Posted by GarthB

How can a uniform part that was the only one authorized just two years ago, and still being worn today be "antiquated?" It's not a computer.

We need a better sense of time and history.

I think from a function and fit perspective they are antiquated. They key isn't that they were the only authorized uniform pant two years ago. The key is how long they've been the only authorized uniform pant.

Traditionalists hold a lot of power when it comes to changing things. It's true in baseball and football. However, sometimes tradition impedes progress.

My sense of history is fine. Why are you trying to turn this into a fight? I've gone out of my way to be friendly towards those who might like tradition.

[IceGator8]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

If we are going to add black pants for comfort reasons can we also add shorts for comfort reasons, especially for those early August games.

I would have no problem with this. My state association allows shorts for JV ball. It's up to the individual crew whether they are white or black. The debate surrounding allowing shorts is a perfect illustration of my intent when I started this thread. The old guard fought the change for a long time but eventually shorts prevailed. Now there isn't one crew in my association that uses knickers for warm JV games and that includes the old guard that fought against the shorts. The shorts are simply more comfortable in warm weather. I think a the pants would be much better in warm weather as well. The pants have a looser fit that would allow air to circulate.

I doubt the quality of the officiating would suffer if shorts were allowed for warm varsity games.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by IceGator8

I think from a function and fit perspective they are antiquated. They key isn't that they were the only authorized uniform pant two years ago. The key is how long they've been the only authorized uniform pant.

Traditionalists hold a lot of power when it comes to changing things. It's true in baseball and football. However, sometimes tradition impedes progress.

My sense of history is fine. Why are you trying to turn this into a fight? I've gone out of my way to be friendly towards those who might like tradition.

No fight intended. I'm just pointing out that something comtemporary is not antiquated.

If you don't like knickers, fine. I am not emotionally involved in that issue. As a teacher, however, I have an annoying penchant for accuracy.

As for a sense of history, I find that many people consider 50 years ago, 75 years ago and 100 years ago to be a long time. Those with a sense of history realize that they are not.

[IceGator8]

Originally Posted by GarthB

No fight intended. I'm just pointing out that something comtemporary is not antiquated.

If you don't like knickers, fine. I am not emotionally involved in that issue. As a teacher, however, I have an annoying penchant for accuracy.

As for a sense of history, I find that many people consider 50 years ago, 75 years ago and 100 years ago to be a long time. Those with a sense of history realize that they are not.

As a highly educated individual I feel that sense of history should usually be determined by the age of the subject being discussed. It's not as if we are dealing with the history of music or religion.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by IceGator8

As a highly educated individual I feel that sense of history should usually be determined by the age of the subject being discussed. It's not as if we are dealing with the history of music or religion.

Darn! I'm educated in both of these.

[Scooby]

Originally Posted by Welpe

As long as the pasty white legs that match the color of the shorts are not included.

With officials, they will be.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Darn! I'm educated in both of these.

What about the history of trousers?

Scooby I'm afraid you're right about that...

[IceGator8]

Originally Posted by GarthB

{sigh}

I agree. What we have here is two smart people who perceive history a little differently. Neither is right or wrong. We just hold a different opinion.

[johnnyg08]

where would a guy even get a pair of those NFL black pants...I'd love the option in our games. Are they only given to the NFL guys? It certainly appears that way.

[HLin NC]

I imagine that Reebok has them made custom for the NFL. Give them a few years and they'll be commercially available.