Jump to content
Greatdane67

ESPN reporting on wrestling referee incident

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Katie said:

I disagree.  The rules specifically address how hair covers should be checked.  They must be checked at weigh ins or when the referee arrives at the site.

Forcing a wrestler to use injury time in order to address an improper hair cover is simply not contemplated by the rules.

If the ref did indeed fail in his responsibilities during the weigh-in, etc., then he certainly bears some responsibility for this mess. That said, it appears (if one believes the news) that both the coach and the young man knew the kid was in violation of the letter of the rule. And by rule, the competitors are to report to the mat with approved equipment - all wrestlers and coaches know this. So, no matter how bad one wants to absolve the kid and blame the ref, it simply doesn't work. 

Earlier in this thread there is a video clip of a different wrestler being told by the ref to use injury time to cut his hair. The message is that if you show up unprepared to wrestle, you have 90 seconds to resolve the matter - period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, npope said:

If the ref did indeed fail in his responsibilities during the weigh-in, etc., then he certainly bears some responsibility for this mess. That said, it appears (if one believes the news) that both the coach and the young man knew the kid was in violation of the letter of the rule. And by rule, the competitors are to report to the mat with approved equipment - all wrestlers and coaches know this. So, no matter how bad one wants to absolve the kid and blame the ref, it simply doesn't work. 

Earlier in this thread there is a video clip of a different wrestler being told by the ref to use injury time to cut his hair. The message is that if you show up unprepared to wrestle, you have 90 seconds to resolve the matter - period.

The rules say that the referee must check hair covers either (1) at weigh ins or (2) when the referee arrives at the site.

The referee apparently did not follow the rules.

Edited by Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tigerfan said:

It appears you don't know what racism is.  Racism, by definition, involves an imbalance of power.  White people in this country and in this period of time cannot be victims of racism, because there is no imbalance of power involved against them.  You're not alone though, MANY white people use the term "reverse racism" which of course is nonsense as well.  Prejudice, bias, etc., of course - racism, no.

Not true... see "knockout game" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Katie said:

I looked over the rules again, and nothing in them says that wrestlers must enforce the hair-cover rule against themselves.

The rules say that the referee must check hair covers either (1) at weigh ins or (2) when the referee arrives at the site.

The bottom line is this: The referee apparently did not follow the rules. As a result, Johnson was forced into a situation that upset many people.

To be fair, nothing in the rules says they enforce themselves if they punch their opponent- but the ref penalizes them if they do in his view since it's also illegal. 

Therefore, it's the coach and kid's responsibility to know enough not to do either of these things (and several other things) and the ref's responsibility to deal with it if it happens and hopefully, to try to prevent it from happening, if possible.

I have no idea if the kid and coach went to him to show him the covering (I keep hearing different stories) but they all should have gotten together beforehand and if he ruled then that the covering was deficient they might have had time to get a better one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiger fan, way to make up a definition that suits your cause (as immoral as it is). Racism can't exist against a particular race of people based on your own world view? Congratulations, you are A) an absolute idiot and B) a racist yourself. Good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

To be fair, nothing in the rules says they enforce themselves if they punch their opponent- but the ref penalizes them if they do in his view since it's also illegal. 

Therefore, it's the coach and kid's responsibility to know enough not to do either of these things (and several other things) and the ref's responsibility to deal with it if it happens and hopefully, to try to prevent it from happening, if possible.

I have no idea if the kid and coach went to him to show him the covering (I keep hearing different stories) but they all should have gotten together beforehand and if he ruled then that the covering was deficient they might have had time to get a better one.

When you speak of the "coach and kid's responsibility," you are talking about your advice on how to react to the rules. You are not actually talking about the rules themselves.

The rules require the referee to do certain things related to head covers, and in this case the referee apparently did not do those things. Unless there are facts I am missing, it seems pretty cut and dry.

Edited by Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Katie said:

When you speak of the "coach and kid's responsibility," you are talking about your advice on how to react to the rules. You are not actually talking about the rules themselves.

The rules require the referee to do certain things related to head covers, and in this case the referee apparently did not do those things.

Yes, but- these are all humans. As I said it's also the kid and coach's responsibility to bring the equipment to the ref's attention. The ref deals with it at the weighins or when he first arrives at the site. He would have to be clairvoyant to know who to see for an oddball situation like this. And that IS in the rules to bring the equipment to weighins to be judged. Since the official wasn't at the weighin he needed to deal with it at some point. Probably during the meeting with the team. 

My point here isn't to absolve the official but to say that there is blame to go around. Again, I keep hearing different versions as time goes on. I did hear one time that they discussed the situation and in another that they were told that the cover wasn't sufficient at an earlier match but they let it slide. 

And I'm wondering why someone didn't figure out how to attach the cover to the headgear.  I don't believe there's any one way to do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Perry said:

Tiger fan, way to make up a definition that suits your cause (as immoral as it is). Racism can't exist against a particular race of people based on your own world view? Congratulations, you are A) an absolute idiot and B) a racist yourself. Good day.

Updated March 16, 2018

Racism refers to a variety of practices, beliefs, social relations, and phenomena that work to reproduce a racial hierarchy and social structure that yield superiority, power, and privilege for some, and discrimination and oppression for others. It can take several forms, including representational, ideological, discursive, interactional, institutional, structural, and systemic.

 

Racism exists when ideas and assumptions about racial categories are used to justify and reproduce a racial hierarchy and racially structured society that unjustly limits access to resources, rights, and privileges on the basis of race. Racism also occurs when this kind of unjust social structure is produced by the failure to account for race and its historical and contemporary roles in society.

 

Contrary to a dictionary definition, racism, as defined based on social science research and theory, is about much more than race-based prejudice — it exists when an imbalance in power and social status is generated by how we understand and act upon race.

 

Stephen Whitehead, Professor, Author, Sociologist, Relationship Coach
Answered Jun 24 2017 · Author has 6.1k answers and 1.2m answer views
 

The concept of ‘race’ is itself an illusion - a social invention. Which gives some indication as to why precise definitions of ‘racism’ are never fully adequate:

“The word race first appeared in the English language in 1508, when it was used to denote a category or class of persons. [In] the late eighteenth century race became invested with biological connotations, [and in] the early nineteenth century specific theories of racial types began to emerge in academic and other writings. Many of the ideas associated with genetics and racial differentiation were founded on pseudo-scientific theories that are now discredited.” (Whitehead, Talahite and Moodley, 2013. ‘Gender and Identity’, Oxford University Press, page 67)

The point being that humans have invented the concept of race in order to justify segmenting humans into categories of exclusivity and inclusivity. This is a process of power, an act of power, out of which arises, inevitably, racism.

 

Racism: Race, Prejudice, and Power

Racism = Race Prejudice + Power 

Race

A specious classification of human beings created by Europeans (whites) which assigns human worth and social status using ‘white’ as the model of humanity and the height of human achievement for the purpose of establishing and maintaining privilege and power. The idea of Race, is based on the ideas of white supremacy and white privilege.

Prejudice

A prejudice is a pre-judgment in favor of or against a person, a group, an event, an idea, or a thing. An action based on prejudgment is discrimination. A negative prejudgment is often called a stereotype. An action based on a stereotype is called bigotry.

Power

Power” is a relational term. It can only be understood as a relationship between human beings in a specific historical, economic and social setting. It must be exercised to be visible.

1. Power is control of, or access to, those institutions sanctioned by the state.

2. Power is the ability to define reality and to convince other people that it is their definition.

3. Power is ownership and control of the major resources of a state; and the capacity to make and enforce decisions based on this ownership and control;

4. Power is the capacity of a group of people to decide what they want and to act in an organized way to get it.

5. (In terms of an individual), power is the capacity to act.

 

Perry, as you can see, I did not invent a definition.  Npope, you must not have looked very hard to have not seen any definitions that mention power imbalance.  The ambiguity arises from the differences of discussing individual racism vs structural, societal, or institutional racism.  People confuse individual racism with prejudice, bias, etc.  Sorry to get veer off topic, but I try to be an ally when the opportunity presents itself.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gimpeltf said:

Yes, but- these are all humans. As I said it's also the kid and coach's responsibility to bring the equipment to the ref's attention. The ref deals with it at the weighins or when he first arrives at the site. He would have to be clairvoyant to know who to see for an oddball situation like this. And that IS in the rules to bring the equipment to weighins to be judged. Since the official wasn't at the weighin he needed to deal with it at some point. Probably during the meeting with the team. 

My point here isn't to absolve the official but to say that there is blame to go around. Again, I keep hearing different versions as time goes on. I did hear one time that they discussed the situation and in another that they were told that the cover wasn't sufficient at an earlier match but they let it slide. 

And I'm wondering why someone didn't figure out how to attach the cover to the headgear.  I don't believe there's any one way to do that. 

In this case, the referee apparently did not check Johnson's head cover at the proper time. As a result, he invented a remedy: give Johnson 90 seconds to either cut his hair or forfeit.

Edited by Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Katie said:

In this case, the referee apparently did not check Johnson's head cover at the proper time. As a result, he invented a fix: give Johnson 90 seconds to either cut his hair or forfeit.  That strikes me as completely outside the rules.

You seem to want to miss the point. I'm talking about the very narrow part of what happened just before the match. Yes, this should have been dealt with earlier but that doesn't change anything about the 90 second edict. Let's suppose they had dealt with it earlier and the kid showed up as he did anyway. The scenario would have been exactly what transpired. There would have been an illegal/improper equipment situation that is handled by starting the injury clock for up to 30 seconds. He didn't make that part up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Perry said:

That's how it always is with equipment infractions. You get injury time to address it or you get dq'd

What rule says that when a referee does not check a head cover at the proper time, the remedy is to simply give the wrestler injury time?

Edited by Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Katie said:

In this case, the referee apparently did not check Johnson's head cover at the proper time. As a result, he invented a remedy: give Johnson 90 seconds to either cut his hair or forfeit.

The ref didnt invent the 90 seconds. The rule is if a wrestler reports to the mat not legally equipped, the opposing wrestler is awarded 1 point and is charged with injury time which is a cumulative 90 seconds. The illegally equiped wrestler has the duration of injury time to correct their error. This also includes laces not being secured, wearing a headgear with tape, coming to the mat wearing a bracelet or jewelry, etc. Its been this way for about 20 years.

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Katie said:

What rule says that when a referee does not check a head cover at the proper time, the remedy is to simply give the wrestler injury time?

And what rule says that not checking when Katie thinks he should makes it legal?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

It sounds like he's being investigated- please join the crew doing it, obviously you know how it should turn out. They should save their time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Katie said:

The rules say that the referee must check hair covers either (1) at weigh ins or (2) when the referee arrives at the site.

The referee apparently did not follow the rules.

I don't know if you actually read my post, but I agreed - if the ref missed something he also shares some of the blame. That said, there are also OTHER rules that still say a kid without proper equipment should not be allowed to compete. Just because a ref misses something does not automatically grant a wrestler a pass on the other rules. Whenever it is discovered a wrestler is not complying with the rules it is time to enforce the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, tigerfan said:
Updated March 16, 2018

Racism refers to a variety of practices, beliefs, social relations, and phenomena that work to reproduce a racial hierarchy and social structure that yield superiority, power, and privilege for some, and discrimination and oppression for others. It can take several forms, including representational, ideological, discursive, interactional, institutional, structural, and systemic.

 

Racism exists when ideas and assumptions about racial categories are used to justify and reproduce a racial hierarchy and racially structured society that unjustly limits access to resources, rights, and privileges on the basis of race. Racism also occurs when this kind of unjust social structure is produced by the failure to account for race and its historical and contemporary roles in society.

 

Contrary to a dictionary definition, racism, as defined based on social science research and theory, is about much more than race-based prejudice — it exists when an imbalance in power and social status is generated by how we understand and act upon race.

 

Stephen Whitehead, Professor, Author, Sociologist, Relationship Coach
Answered Jun 24 2017 · Author has 6.1k answers and 1.2m answer views
 

The concept of ‘race’ is itself an illusion - a social invention. Which gives some indication as to why precise definitions of ‘racism’ are never fully adequate:

“The word race first appeared in the English language in 1508, when it was used to denote a category or class of persons. [In] the late eighteenth century race became invested with biological connotations, [and in] the early nineteenth century specific theories of racial types began to emerge in academic and other writings. Many of the ideas associated with genetics and racial differentiation were founded on pseudo-scientific theories that are now discredited.” (Whitehead, Talahite and Moodley, 2013. ‘Gender and Identity’, Oxford University Press, page 67)

The point being that humans have invented the concept of race in order to justify segmenting humans into categories of exclusivity and inclusivity. This is a process of power, an act of power, out of which arises, inevitably, racism.

 

Racism: Race, Prejudice, and Power

Racism = Race Prejudice + Power 

Race

A specious classification of human beings created by Europeans (whites) which assigns human worth and social status using ‘white’ as the model of humanity and the height of human achievement for the purpose of establishing and maintaining privilege and power. The idea of Race, is based on the ideas of white supremacy and white privilege.

Prejudice

A prejudice is a pre-judgment in favor of or against a person, a group, an event, an idea, or a thing. An action based on prejudgment is discrimination. A negative prejudgment is often called a stereotype. An action based on a stereotype is called bigotry.

Power

Power” is a relational term. It can only be understood as a relationship between human beings in a specific historical, economic and social setting. It must be exercised to be visible.

1. Power is control of, or access to, those institutions sanctioned by the state.

2. Power is the ability to define reality and to convince other people that it is their definition.

3. Power is ownership and control of the major resources of a state; and the capacity to make and enforce decisions based on this ownership and control;

4. Power is the capacity of a group of people to decide what they want and to act in an organized way to get it.

5. (In terms of an individual), power is the capacity to act.

 

Perry, as you can see, I did not invent a definition.  Npope, you must not have looked very hard to have not seen any definitions that mention power imbalance.  The ambiguity arises from the differences of discussing individual racism vs structural, societal, or institutional racism.  People confuse individual racism with prejudice, bias, etc.  Sorry to get veer off topic, but I try to be an ally when the opportunity presents itself.  

Nat Pope, PhD, professor (npope) at the University of North Texas (evidently pedigrees and cited source matter in this debate on a wrestling forum)

I described exactly how I performed my search and the amount of time spent doing so. Therefore, you should know exactly how "hard" I looked. As previously stated, I read the top few definitions presented in that search (about five of them) - none of those results included anything of the nature you provide above; I have only stated the facts as I experienced them. Indeed, there are (evidently) a multitude of definitions of racism. For you to uncover one (or even three) that happen to align with your predisposition on the topic and present it as the preeminent definition of the term is disingenuous and misleading. 

I am not saying anyone is wrong on their respective definitions but rather, no one is no more correct than any other. To your credit, I will say that you do have a solid basis for your stated understanding and opinion - far more than most can say on the forum.

Edited by npope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

Yes, but- these are all humans. As I said it's also the kid and coach's responsibility to bring the equipment to the ref's attention. The ref deals with it at the weighins or when he first arrives at the site. He would have to be clairvoyant to know who to see for an oddball situation like this. And that IS in the rules to bring the equipment to weighins to be judged. Since the official wasn't at the weighin he needed to deal with it at some point. Probably during the meeting with the team. 

My point here isn't to absolve the official but to say that there is blame to go around. Again, I keep hearing different versions as time goes on. I did hear one time that they discussed the situation and in another that they were told that the cover wasn't sufficient at an earlier match but they let it slide. 

And I'm wondering why someone didn't figure out how to attach the cover to the headgear.  I don't believe there's any one way to do that. 

Good post.  The mob wants to place all the blame on the "racist" ref when there are others who also share responsibly (arguably more responsibility than Maloney).  For example, the Buena coach was supposed to follow this rule:

SECTION 2 DUAL MEET - ARTICLE 4:

ART. 4 . . . Prior to the meet the head coach shall verify that all wrestlers will be in proper uniform, properly groomed, properly equipped and ready to wrestle.

Notwithstanding the above, the coach sent Johnson out improperly equipped to wrestle.  And he did so in spite of the fact he knew, or should have known, that this was a potential problem, particularly in view of the previous tournament.  While the tournament ref allowed him to wrestle without proper equipment in that instance, the issue obviously came up.  (Johnson's own family stated that, in arguing with Maloney that he should wrestle without the proper cover "Andrew requested that he be allowed to push his hair back as he did the weekend prior.")

Edited by HurricaneWrestling2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, tigerfan said:
Updated March 16, 2018

Racism refers to a variety of practices, beliefs, social relations, and phenomena that work to reproduce a racial hierarchy and social structure that yield superiority, power, and privilege for some, and discrimination and oppression for others. It can take several forms, including representational, ideological, discursive, interactional, institutional, structural, and systemic.

 

Racism exists when ideas and assumptions about racial categories are used to justify and reproduce a racial hierarchy and racially structured society that unjustly limits access to resources, rights, and privileges on the basis of race. Racism also occurs when this kind of unjust social structure is produced by the failure to account for race and its historical and contemporary roles in society.

 

Contrary to a dictionary definition, racism, as defined based on social science research and theory, is about much more than race-based prejudice — it exists when an imbalance in power and social status is generated by how we understand and act upon race.

 

Stephen Whitehead, Professor, Author, Sociologist, Relationship Coach
Answered Jun 24 2017 · Author has 6.1k answers and 1.2m answer views
 

The concept of ‘race’ is itself an illusion - a social invention. Which gives some indication as to why precise definitions of ‘racism’ are never fully adequate:

“The word race first appeared in the English language in 1508, when it was used to denote a category or class of persons. [In] the late eighteenth century race became invested with biological connotations, [and in] the early nineteenth century specific theories of racial types began to emerge in academic and other writings. Many of the ideas associated with genetics and racial differentiation were founded on pseudo-scientific theories that are now discredited.” (Whitehead, Talahite and Moodley, 2013. ‘Gender and Identity’, Oxford University Press, page 67)

The point being that humans have invented the concept of race in order to justify segmenting humans into categories of exclusivity and inclusivity. This is a process of power, an act of power, out of which arises, inevitably, racism.

 

Racism: Race, Prejudice, and Power

Racism = Race Prejudice + Power 

Race

A specious classification of human beings created by Europeans (whites) which assigns human worth and social status using ‘white’ as the model of humanity and the height of human achievement for the purpose of establishing and maintaining privilege and power. The idea of Race, is based on the ideas of white supremacy and white privilege.

Prejudice

A prejudice is a pre-judgment in favor of or against a person, a group, an event, an idea, or a thing. An action based on prejudgment is discrimination. A negative prejudgment is often called a stereotype. An action based on a stereotype is called bigotry.

Power

Power” is a relational term. It can only be understood as a relationship between human beings in a specific historical, economic and social setting. It must be exercised to be visible.

1. Power is control of, or access to, those institutions sanctioned by the state.

2. Power is the ability to define reality and to convince other people that it is their definition.

3. Power is ownership and control of the major resources of a state; and the capacity to make and enforce decisions based on this ownership and control;

4. Power is the capacity of a group of people to decide what they want and to act in an organized way to get it.

5. (In terms of an individual), power is the capacity to act.

 

Perry, as you can see, I did not invent a definition.  Npope, you must not have looked very hard to have not seen any definitions that mention power imbalance.  The ambiguity arises from the differences of discussing individual racism vs structural, societal, or institutional racism.  People confuse individual racism with prejudice, bias, etc.  Sorry to get veer off topic, but I try to be an ally when the opportunity presents itself.  

Semantics:

My simple definition is any  nasty action against another based on his/her race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bp2xbw said:

Semantics:

My simple definition is any  nasty action against another based on his/her race.

Unfortunately, not every concept is simple.  If brevity and simplicity were sufficient, PhD's would simply tweet their dissertations and we would never have to read anything more than 140 characters.  I've not found that to be the case, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, HurricaneWrestling2 said:

For example, the Buena Vista coach was supposed to follow this rule:

Not Buena Vista- Buena. And for non-South Jerseyans is pronounced Byoonah as opposed to Bwainah. I believe it's actually a native term rather than Spanish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bp2xbw said:

Semantics:

My simple definition is any  nasty action against another based on his/her race.

 

2 hours ago, tigerfan said:

Unfortunately, not every concept is simple.  If brevity and simplicity were sufficient, PhD's would simply tweet their dissertations and we would never have to read anything more than 140 characters.  I've not found that to be the case, however.

I prefer bp2xbw's definition as I think its unnecessary to have to study PhD dissertations to have a working definition and coherent understanding of racism.  Besides, much of the so-called scholarship on race is highly questionable and/or outright neo-Marxist bull$hit. 

Portland State University Professor Peter Boghossian and his colleagues recently demonstrated the above by getting several entirely bogus "research papers" accepted for publication by academic journals.  As outlined in the below-linked article, they weren't "doing it just to be funny: He and his colleagues launched the satirical broadside at feminist theory and race-studies scholarship in order to prove those fields are academically fraudulent."

https://www.wweek.com/news/schools/2018/10/09/a-portland-state-university-professor-made-up-a-study-of-dog-on-dog-sexual-assault-and-got-the-hoax-published/

 

 

 

 

Edited by HurricaneWrestling2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Katie said:

I think you are right that the referee chose to use injury time to address Johnson's head cover. 

But my point is this: The rules require a referee to check head covers either at weigh ins or upon arrival at the site.  The referee in this case apparently did not do that. He then apparently proceeded to remedy his failure by simply giving Johnson injury time. I do not believe such a remedy is in the rule book.

 

First of all, while the referee is required to do a pre-meet or pre-tournament inspection, hopefully to avoid situations like this one, ultimately, the responsibility to make sure the wrestler shows up to the mat properly equipped is on the head coach:

 

Rule 1-2-4: [Competition] …Prior to the meet the head coach shall verify that all wrestlers will be in proper uniform, properly groomed, properly equipped and ready to wrestle.

 Rule 3-1-4:  Before the dual meet begins, the referee shall:

    d.  Have the head coach verify that the team is groomed, properly equipped and ready to wrestle, including shoelaces being secured.

 

 

After this inspection, if for any reason, a wrestler steps on the mat to compete while improperly equipped, it’s a technical violation:

 

Rule 5-27-1: [Definitions] There are five types of technical violations.  Each is penalized without warning as outlined in Rule 7-3:

    e.  Reporting to the scorer’s table not properly equipped, ready to wrestle or any equipment that is detected as being illegal after the match has started.

 

Rule 7-3-5. [Infractions] Technical Violations: Reporting to the scorer’s table, not properly equipped, or not ready to wrestle or any equipment that is detected as being illegal after the match has started is a technical violation.

 

 

For this specific violation, the wrestler is deducted a team point, and disqualified if the problem is not corrected within the allotted time, which is 1 ½ minute:

Rule 8-1-1: [Penalty Administration]:  Any contestant reporting to the scorer’s table not properly equipped or not ready to wrestle is a technical violation.  A wrestler with a greasy substance on the body or uniform, improper grooming, objectionable pads and braces, illegal equipment, illegal uniform or any equipment that is detected as being illegal after the match has started shall be disqualified if not removed or corrected within the 1 ½ minute injury time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HurricaneWrestling2 said:

 

I prefer bp2xbw's definition as I think its unnecessary to have to study PhD dissertations to have a working definition and coherent understanding of racism.  Besides, much of the so-called scholarship on race is highly questionable and/or outright neo-Marxist bull$hit. 

Portland State University Professor Peter Boghossian and his colleagues recently demonstrated the above by getting several entirely bogus "research papers" accepted for publication by academic journals.  As outlined in the below-linked article, they weren't "doing it just to be funny: He and his colleagues launched the satirical broadside at feminist theory and race-studies scholarship in order to prove those fields are academically fraudulent."

https://www.wweek.com/news/schools/2018/10/09/a-portland-state-university-professor-made-up-a-study-of-dog-on-dog-sexual-assault-and-got-the-hoax-published/

 

I understand the point he's trying to make, and it's an important one.  But there is a large difference between between studying abstract and complex issues sufficiently to understand the basics, and accepting an overly simplistic definition that misses out on a critical component, not coincidentally avoiding any perceived injustice by those most affected by the concept in the first place.  How convenient to accept a definition of racism that allows whites to share in the injustice, rather than historically being the main perpetrators of said injustices.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Katie said:

Contrary to the assumption many in this thread have, the referee apparently did not follow the rules.  The most recent version of the NFHS rules concerning hair coverings I can find are the 2015-16 NFHS Rules (https://www1.arbitersports.com/Groups/105995/Library/files/Wrestling Notes.pdf). 

According to those rules:

  1. The legal hair cover must be attached to the ear guards.
  2. The wrestler opting to wear a legal hair cover must wear it to the weigh in procedure and be checked for grooming with it on.  The legal hair cover must be removed prior to the wrestler stepping on the scale to be weighed.
  3. If a referee is not present at weigh ins, the hair cover must be checked by the mat referee upon arrival at the site.

Let's assume Johnson's hair cover was not attached to his ear guards. Even if that was so, the referee in this case should have checked the hair cover either at weigh ins or as soon as he arrived at the site. Instead, it appears that the referee checked Johnson's hair covering just before Johnson was set to begin wrestling. And, he only gave Johnson 90 seconds to decide.  (I do not know how the referee decided on 90 seconds.)

The result was that Johnson was forced to make a deeply personal decision about his personal appearance in public, in only 90 seconds, and with his coaches' and teammates' expectations hanging in the balance. And to the extent that those involved and those watching did not understand what dreadlocks can mean for African Americans, it made the situation all the more upsetting.

If the referee had followed the rules as I understand them, Johnson would not have been put into that upsetting position.

 

16 hours ago, Katie said:

I respectfully disagree.  The rules specifically address how hair covers should be checked.  They must be checked at weigh ins or when the referee arrives at the site.

As far as I know, when a referee fails to check a head cover at the proper time, the failure cannot be remedied by simply giving a wrestler injury time to address a head cover problem.

 

15 hours ago, Katie said:

I think you are right that the referee chose to use injury time to address Johnson's head cover. 

But my point is this: The rules require a referee to check head covers either at weigh ins or upon arrival at the site.  The referee in this case apparently did not do that. He then apparently proceeded to remedy his failure by simply giving Johnson injury time. I do not believe such a remedy is in the rule book.

 

Merry Christmas, but you are way off base here.

As sheerstress posted, it is also in the rule book for the head coach to verify that the team is properly equipped.   Also, even the family's official statement seems to indicate that the referee did in fact notify the wrestler prior to the match starting that he would need the proper head covering: "the referee later informed Nate Johnson, Andrew's younger brother and teammate, that they would both need to wear a head covering or face disqualification"    So while he may not have checked the specific cover which he should have done, he still notified him that he needed the proper head cover once it was time wrestle which happens all the time - although I'm sure will be more strictly enforced now.   And again, considering the wrestler was reportedly already warned at least twice prior about needing the proper head cover, he (and probably more importantly, the coach), should have known and are ultimately responsible.

Also, as also previously noted, the ref did not "make up" the 90 seconds.  Here is the most recent copy of the actual rule book I could find online: http://www.utahwrestling.org/2014_15WrestlingRuleBook.pdf

Page 139: "Any contestant reporting to the scorer’s table not properly equipped or not ready to wrestle is a technical violation. A wrestler with greasy substance on the body or uniform, improper grooming, objectionable pads and braces, illegal equipment, illegal uniform or any equipment that is detected as being illegal after the match has started shall be disqualified if not removed or corrected within the 1½-minute injury time."

And a reminder that a Technical Violation results in 1 match point to the competitor, however according to the scoresheet on Track (http://www.trackwrestling.com/tw/seasons/DualScoreSheet.jsp?TIM=1545758440856&twSessionId=warmblbpgw&dualId=3069180132) this supposedly racist ref did not award one to the black wrestler's white opponent as required (which again happens all the time in situations like this).    Note that Mr. Johnson won in overtime, so maybe if anyone should be complaining, it is his opponent/opponent's coach...

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

 

 

 

Merry Christmas, but you are way off base here.

As sheerstress posted, it is also in the rule book for the head coach to verify that the team is properly equipped.   Also, even the family's official statement seems to indicate that the referee did in fact notify the wrestler prior to the match starting that he would need the proper head covering: "the referee later informed Nate Johnson, Andrew's younger brother and teammate, that they would both need to wear a head covering or face disqualification"    So while he may not have checked the specific cover which he should have done, he still notified him that he needed the proper head cover once it was time wrestle which happens all the time - although I'm sure will be more strictly enforced now.   And again, considering the wrestler was reportedly already warned at least twice prior about needing the proper head cover, he (and probably more importantly, the coach), should have known and are ultimately responsible.

Also, as also previously noted, the ref did not "make up" the 90 seconds.  Here is the most recent copy of the actual rule book I could find online: http://www.utahwrestling.org/2014_15WrestlingRuleBook.pdf

Page 139: "Any contestant reporting to the scorer’s table not properly equipped or not ready to wrestle is a technical violation. A wrestler with greasy substance on the body or uniform, improper grooming, objectionable pads and braces, illegal equipment, illegal uniform or any equipment that is detected as being illegal after the match has started shall be disqualified if not removed or corrected within the 1½-minute injury time."

And a reminder that a Technical Violation results in 1 match point to the competitor, however according to the scoresheet on Track (http://www.trackwrestling.com/tw/seasons/DualScoreSheet.jsp?TIM=1545758440856&twSessionId=warmblbpgw&dualId=3069180132) this supposedly racist ref did not award one to the black wrestler's white opponent as required (which again happens all the time in situations like this).    Note that Mr. Johnson won in overtime, so maybe if anyone should be complaining, it is his opponent/opponent's coach...

I respectfully disagree. The rules do not contemplate a referee checking a head covering for the first time just before a match begins.

In this case, when the referee apparently failed to check Johnson's head covering at the proper time, he remedied his apparent failure by simply giving Johnson injury time to address the issue. That remedy is not contemplated by the rule book.

If the referee had checked Johnson's head covering at weigh ins or upon arrival at the site, then we would be talking about a scenario that was actually contemplated by the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×