Jump to content

jon

Members
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. jon

    Hair Cut

    Prior post concise, informative, comprehensive!
  2. jon

    Hair Cut

    Ditto. Ref ought not be burned at stake. Save the stake for NJSIAA. Dreadlocks case a nonstory (or at most a shortlived story) if it were to include just about any other ref. Typical ref doesn't have disciplinary history. Makes sense to isolate this incident because typical scenarios have typical refs. This scenario has a goon ref -- i.e., disciplinary history. Ref should have thought about self-accountability when making that 'joke'.
  3. jon

    Hair Cut

    Kinda. Higher standard? No. But a goon ref ought to be subject to heightened scrutiny. No. Somewhere there's a rule that assumes there's a 'good' ref (lol) not a goon ref. I think I'm talking past everyone else here. I'm focused on ref and, for the sake of interpreting this dreadlocks case, I wish this ref--the goon ref--were not involved.
  4. jon

    Hair Cut

     I pretty much pointed out this error in thinking to jon. Perry has been saying it also. Neither of us said it as clearly as you have and called it by name. Thank you for your thoughtful posts in this thread. I've not responded so much because I'm not reading so closely. Feels as if posters talking past one another. Or perhaps posters talking about different things. Or perhaps posters striving to do something impossible - i.e., striving to read the ref's mind. My opinion: 'Consistent with the rules' explanation ought to prevail in a typical scenario -- but right now we're not talking about a typical scenario! Dreadlocks case involves a goon ref whose past transgressions ought to draw attention to all subsequent conduct. I've not read this thread closely enough to know whether or not the ref followed rules to a tee--I've seen some comments suggesting rules vague and/or ref not in compliance to the fullest extent--but if the ref's fidelity is any less than 100% then I say the "self accountability" diversion applies to ref just as much as others believe it applies to the kid. Dreadlocks case is not about society. Dreadlocks case not typical/generalizable even in the narrow context of matside haircuts. Dreadlocks case has a goon ref. Half the statements here acknowledge this fact (and so, in my opinion, these statements on topic) and remaining statements in this thread ignore/downplay this fact (why??). Don't hold the kid to high standards (self accountability) if you won't do the same for the ref. I can't read the ref's mind (and so my 'bias' explanation may well be wrong!) but neither can you. Do the rules need rewriting? Does a ref who was benched for a year need to be monitored?
  5. jon

    Hair Cut

    Question is not what's the ref thinking but rather do circumstances indicate a particular explanation is *plausible*? Ref has a sketchy past, which makes bias-oriented haircut explanation *plausible*. Not all rules enforcement/applucations/interpretations steeped in bias. Dreadlocks case, however, not so much a 'consistent with the rules' example. If it's *plausible* that the ref would act on bias then dreadlocks case merits scrutiny.
  6. jon

    Hair Cut

    'Consistent with rules' explanation weakened in this case by the ref's sketchy past. Ref's history of racist behavior makes non-rules explanation look plausible. This particular situation--the dreadlocks situation--is hairy (no pun intended lol). 'Consistent with rules' explanation seems simplistic. Not trying to be argumentative. But here's the flipside: "Why assume there [isn't] a bias in the motive when the actions [come from a ref whose past is sketchy one way or another]?"
  7. jon

    Hair Cut

    Why worry about implicit bias, other bias when the ref's history of racist behavior takes second to notions of self accountability? Perry's comments here make her/his anti-Iowa potshots look thoughtful.
  8. Seems clear original poster wants attention. I'm happy to give a like!
  9. jon

    Cornell's Logjam at 133

    Aren't you the pest who writes 'Sorryano' and 'Sorry-ano'?
  10. jon

    Streaming options for worlds

    PPV better than Flo stranglehold. Especially for the sake of "grow wrestling".
  11. jon

    Streaming options for worlds

    Not quite on topic but I do want to say: I'm rooting hard for Track. "Grow wrestling" happens only without lock-in. I hope Track provides the 'unlocked' channel that I think "grow wrestling" needs. Track service has room to improve but there's nothing to suggest Track organization inept. I don't have the impression that Track is in over its head.
  12. jon

    Streaming options for worlds

    No -- Flo is the product targeted to parents and Track is the product that serves as a counter-, a rival-, a check to Flo. LemonPie's gripe is legit but perhaps Track pricing is a feature not a bug. Lock-in a bad thing! Especially when it's really lock-in plus sketchy billing plus sketchy customer service! Thank you, Dennis, for the thoughtful, targeted, nonsnarky, nongrandiose response.
×