Jump to content
Greatdane67

ESPN reporting on wrestling referee incident

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, BigTenFanboy said:

AGAIN IT DOES. The rule is A wrestler must report to the mat legally equipped, otherwise the opposing wrestler is awarded a point for technical violation, AND the 90 second injury clock is started to correct the illegal issue. THAT IS THE RULE.  PLEASE TAKE THIS RULE AND APPLY ANY SCENARIO TO IT.

This will be my last post on this topic.

When the Supreme Court interprets a statute, it interprets each provision within the statute with reference to the entire statute.  I apply that same principle to the rule book.

Rule 4-2-1 requires a referee to check head covers at weigh ins or upon arrival at the site. However, nothing in the rule book says what should happen when the referee fails to do so.

As a result, the entire rule book assumes that referees check head covers at weigh ins or upon arrival at the site.

The end.

 

 

Edited by Katie

Share this post


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

This will be my last post on this topic.

When the Supreme Court interprets a statute, it interprets each provision within the statute with reference to the entire statute.  I apply that same principle to the rule book.

Rule 4-2-1 requires a referee to check head covers at weigh ins or upon arrival at the site. However, Rule 4-2-1 does not say what should happen when the referee fails to do so.

As a result, the entire rule book assumes that referees check head covers at weigh ins or upon arrival at the site.  As a corollary, nothing in the rule book addresses situations where a referee fails to check head covers at weigh ins or upon arrival at the site.

The end

What is your agenda here? Your outlook on this is ridiculous. This isn't the Supreme Court. This isn't a court at all. It's the wrestling rulebook. It's a guideline.

And please read 3.2 second sentence. "The referee has the sole authority for ruling on infractions or irregularities not covered within the NFHS wrestling rules.".

The fact that he didn't initially check is something that I assume the investigation will cover and he should be dealt with appropriately for that. In your own words- the match started with nothing specifically addressing what happens (Note: because of your lack of precision in your post I had to add the word specifically otherwise if we follow your lead they would have to cancel the meet). Therefore it clearly falls under rule 3.2 second sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I am fine with Katie closing out his/her contribution to this thread because there is obviously some mental block going on with him/her. S/He simply can't grasp the notion that there are additional rules in place that grant the ref final authority over anything that isn't "right," according to the rule book. I really don't know what Katie has been struggling with these last couple of thread pages.

Anyway...

Share this post


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

This will be my last post on this topic.

When the Supreme Court interprets a statute, it interprets each provision within the statute with reference to the entire statute.  I apply that same principle to the rule book.

Rule 4-2-1 requires a referee to check head covers at weigh ins or upon arrival at the site. However, nothing in the rule book says what should happen when the referee fails to do so.

As a result, the entire rule book assumes that referees check head covers at weigh ins or upon arrival at the site.

The end.

 

 

So according to your interpretation, which is wrong, if a wrestler reports to the mat illegally equiped and is charged with a technical violation and injury time, that ref is making the wrong call?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, boconnell said:

You're wrong on this.  The ref messed up not performing a complete check ahead of time.  That is not following the rules and clashes completely with the idea he's a stickler for rules.  Sticklers love their pre-match checks.  He may be a stickler for some rules and with some kids, but you can't accurately call a guy a stickler who just skips the pre-match checks. 

The competitor and coach messed up not having legal gear.  This is separate and apart from the ref missing the check.  Too many people want to declare one side wrong.  Jordan Burroughs was dead on when he put it on the coach AND the ref.  Any kid I coached who had illegal equipment would have been primarily on me.  I also never would have cut a kid's hair matside with cameras rolling.  I wouldn't have done that 10 years ago with a white kid.  It's just bad optics having a kid in distress while an adult cuts his hair.  If you work with kids you have to have some awareness and be the adult.  

The ref then correctly applied the rule during the match.  It never should have come to that, but the rules absolutely allow for correcting illegal gear no matter the outcome (or existence) of the pre-match check.  The ref's conduct in match is either stubborn or unaware, but it is in 100% agreement with the rules.  Furthermore he had nothing to do with the haircut.  He did his job poorly by not checking and then had zero flexibility with a kid.  But he didn't suggest a haircut, he just started the clock towards DQ.  The haircut is a result of the coach's response to the ref's rules application.  The ref's racist past paints that rules application in a certain light and I don't blame anyone who gets mad at the ref.  But his during match conduct was correct by the rules.

 

Are you sure the ref didn't tell him he needed a haircut? So the coach is person who forced the haircut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2018 at 3:11 PM, Greatdane67 said:

The ref's documented racist past definitely plays a role here.

The documented racist past is this. They had their end of season officials party. An African American, who was a friend of this official, brought (I believe it was Jell-O shots). He had some and made a joke to his friend “you n———- make some good jello”. The guy wasn’t offended at all, thought it was funny, but someone else who heard the joke, someone who wasn’t so much a friend, and reported it. 

So the “documented racist past” is not so much that as it is like the Gilman situation: probably not the smartest thing to say in public, but was not racist. Racism inherently lies in intent. This situation as it were, while appearing more racist than the Gilman situation, is not racist. Not smart, but not racist. Just my opinion, based on what I feel it means to be racist or engage in a racist act. 

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2018 at 11:57 PM, 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.

If he missed the weigh in, I’m willing to bet there was more than one official at the event, who did complete the weigh ins and skin/equipment checks. It is not at all uncommon for all of the officials at an event not be at weigh ins. So IF nobody checked his equipment, it is on an official but another official. Secondly, he did not invent a remedy, it is the remedy defined in the rule book.  

Share this post


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

Under the rules, a referee will check a head cover at weigh ins or upon arrival at the site.  If the wrestler then attempts to compete with the non-compliant head cover anyway, then (I believe) the wrestler would get 90 seconds of injury time to become compliant.  But that 90-second-injury-time provision assumes that the wrestler had advance notice of the problem.

The rules simply do not address a scenario where a referee checks a head cover for the first time just before a match. 

 

Actually it does, when at the coin flip before the dual begins both coaches are required, by rule, that their athletes are properly equipped and ready to wrestle when they check in at the table. This is very much a rule, and required before the start of every dual, even if a five dual day, it has to be verified in each and every dual. 

The rule is in place for this exact reason. There are a number of reasons why someone may come to the mat improperly equipped even after a correctly performed equipment check at weigh in. A couple of examples: athlete with braces presents his mouth piece at weigh in, doesn’t have it when he/she shows up at the mat; athlete has properly covered knee brace at weigh in, through wear and tear of the four prior matches, there is metal exposed as he/she reports to the fifth match; an athlete presents a proper hair cover at weigh in, reports to mat with a non-compliant hair cover. 

 

So the rule book very much addresses the scenario, in fact has a rule for it, that is carried out at the beginning of each and every dual. Remember, not every official sees checks every athlete at weigh ins when there are multiples. The roles are split. In some cases, not every official is present at weigh ins, that is not a requirement, nor does it need to be. 

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Lurker said:

If he missed the weigh in, I’m willing to bet there was more than one official at the event, who did complete the weigh ins and skin/equipment checks. It is not at all uncommon for all of the officials at an event not be at weigh ins. So IF nobody checked his equipment, it is on an official but another official. Secondly, he did not invent a remedy, it is the remedy defined in the rule book.  

The story changes every time I hear it. I spoke to an official this morning close to the situation. It's turned into a real Sh!t show. There are a lot of no comments floating around and the wrestlers parents have an attorney and a civil suit is probable. The general consensus is the public hair cut was  humiliating regardless if the rule was applied correctly or not., and since the ref has a racist history only adds fuel to the media fire.

That said, all the area AD's and coaches knew of this refs hx and Buena booked him anyway. Is not the school administration responsible as well? The wrestlers attorney has been saying that the school administration is not to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends, on my state where I was a long time coach and have since turned official, the particular schools do not assign officials to events. The official association does. In fact ours is a draft, the schedule is laid out, the senior official gets first pick, and on down the line. We do one for the first half of the season then a second draft for the remainder. 

Share this post


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

That said, all the area AD's and coaches knew of this refs hx and Buena booked him anyway. Is not the school administration responsible as well? The wrestlers attorney has been saying that the school administration is not to blame.

Officials are assigned outside of the school. I suppose they can veto under certain circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was on a site yesterday, a non wrestling site, where I tried to explain to all the non wrestling fans present what was going on. I also tried to point out that anyone who posted on the incident, without ever having been to a HS/College Wrestling meet was now obligated to attend one. (to quote myself "how can any Pennsylvanian call himself a serious sports fan without having been to a wrestling meet and, at least in the East, a field hockey game"). Still there is much history unknown to me.

When did hair covers first appear? When did the rules first mention hair gear? When did the rules first require hair cover to be integrated with hear guards? What was the thinking of requiring integration? If someone asked me two weeks ago, I probably would have said they need not be integrated.    

Share this post


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

Officials are assigned outside of the school. I suppose they can veto under certain circumstances.

Officials are independent contractors who contract with the school's athletic director or with the tournament director.  The tournament knows exactly who they are enlisting from the beginning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, RichB said:

When did hair covers first appear? When did the rules first mention hair gear? When did the rules first require hair cover to be integrated with hear guards? What was the thinking of requiring integration? If someone asked me two weeks ago, I probably would have said they need not be integrated.    

OK there Bull Connor ;)

The attachment was around 5 years ago as I understand it. I assume it was simply because the covers would pop up through the headgear causing stoppages to fix. Could have just called them for stalling. 

Offhand, I think the cover was 15-20 years back but that's just a gut feeling on my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, RichB said:

I was on a site yesterday, a non wrestling site, where I tried to explain to all the non wrestling fans present what was going on. I also tried to point out that anyone who posted on the incident, without ever having been to a HS/College Wrestling meet was now obligated to attend one. (to quote myself "how can any Pennsylvanian call himself a serious sports fan without having been to a wrestling meet and, at least in the East, a field hockey game"). Still there is much history unknown to me.

When did hair covers first appear? When did the rules first mention hair gear? When did the rules first require hair cover to be integrated with hear guards? What was the thinking of requiring integration? If someone asked me two weeks ago, I probably would have said they need not be integrated.    

 A ref told me this morning the rule was implemented 4 yrs ago with a 2 year grace period for schools to acquire the headgear.  The reason the head covers came loose too much holding up the match.

It's my understanding any Ref can be blacklisted from a school in New Jersey and many are, usually for bad calls and arguments between coach and ref. 

Share this post


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

The documented racist past is this. They had their end of season officials party. An African American, who was a friend of this official, brought (I believe it was Jell-O shots). He had some and made a joke to his friend “you n———- make some good jello”. The guy wasn’t offended at all, thought it was funny, but someone else who heard the joke, someone who wasn’t so much a friend, and reported it. 

I thought the report was that the other official punched him or something after the comment?  Although he did claim that he apologized to him directly and that it was accepted.

 

1 hour ago, Lurker said:

If he missed the weigh in, I’m willing to bet there was more than one official at the event, who did complete the weigh ins and skin/equipment checks. It is not at all uncommon for all of the officials at an event not be at weigh ins. So IF nobody checked his equipment, it is on an official but another official. Secondly, he did not invent a remedy, it is the remedy defined in the rule book.  

I think it was a standard weekday dual meet, so doubtful that there was more than one official.  But it’s not uncommon for refs not to be at the weigh in of dual meets, then do hair/nails/skin checks later.  Note the statement from the attorney DID say that he did in fact check the teams before the match.  Although it claims he first did not comment about the wrestler’s hair, but did at a later time (still before the meet started).

 

20 minutes ago, RichB said:

 

When did hair covers first appear? When did the rules first mention hair gear? When did the rules first require hair cover to be integrated with hear guards? What was the thinking of requiring integration? If someone asked me two weeks ago, I probably would have said they need not be integrated.    

According to this link they were first required during the 2014-2015 season: https://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/wrestling-rules-changes-2013-14/

IIRC as someone stated earlier, there may have been a slight delay in the enforcement due to the availability of the headgear/covers when they first came out.  I’m sure it’s because the detached covers would often come loose.  It also makes it easier to enforce what exactly constitutes a legal cover (such as someone trying to use a winter beanie for instance).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we know big organizations always stick to the rules.  After all in 1984 nationals NCAA correctly enforced the rule that says ~"If an Oklahoma wrestler is over an hour late for a match against a wrestler from an insignificant program like Drexel, he shall instead be allowed to wrestle that match at the beginning of the second round"~. 

Share this post


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

I thought the report was that the other official punched him or something after the comment?  Although he did claim that he apologized to him directly and that it was accepted.

 

I think it was a standard weekday dual meet, so doubtful that there was more than one official.  But it’s not uncommon for refs not to be at the weigh in of dual meets, then do hair/nails/skin checks later.  Note the statement from the attorney DID say that he did in fact check the teams before the match.  Although it claims he first did not comment about the wrestler’s hair, but did at a later time (still before the meet)

 

Regarding the comment incident, I was not referring to a news story but from an individual who is close with all those in that area. That’s just what he told me so for whatever it’s worth. He said the black official wasn’t upset but someone that didn’t like this official took advantage of it..

I believe it was a Friday evening, but quad meets are not that uncommon during the week particularly on Friday. It said he was not at weigh-ins so I am only assuming you it was an event with multiple officials. I don’t know if jersey allows teams to weigh in together without any official. Some states do some don’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Officials are assigned. I just talked with one of the top officials in NJ. He pointed out the NYTimes article https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/12/24/us/ap-us-high-school-wrestler-dreadlocks-cut.html which gives largely the family's view on the subject itself but towards the end 

"The organization that oversees the state's high school athletics announced Saturday that he won't be assigned to any matches until the incident is reviewed."

Share this post


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

Officials are assigned. I just talked with one of the top officials in NJ. He pointed out the NYTimes article https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/12/24/us/ap-us-high-school-wrestler-dreadlocks-cut.html which gives largely the family's view on the subject itself but towards the end 

"The organization that oversees the state's high school athletics announced Saturday that he won't be assigned to any matches until the incident is reviewed."

Gimp knows. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2018 at 6:58 AM, tigerfan said:

It is a racially biased rule, as acknowledged by Askren in is FB live session, in the same way that literacy tests were in the Jim Crow south.  On it's face, it seems harmless enough and even makes sense to try to prevent harm from excessive hair length, just as being able to read doesn't seem like a terrible requirement to cast an intelligent vote.  But in practice, both rules were targeted at people who were "different" from the majority.  In a sport like wrestling, with the joint-manipulating, body-slamming activities, are we seriously worried about someone potentially getting essentially matburned by hair?? The rule has racist implications in practice and intent.  Whether or not the ref was right or wrong to enforce it is a different debate, but there's no denying the long hair rules are antiquated and stupid.  Objectively.

As I understand it, your argument is that the the intent of the hair rule is to unfairly exclude Blacks.  However, when one actually looks at the history of the rule, it seems to be one of inclusion - not exclusion as you suggest.

For decades the only way to effectively comply with the hair rule was via a hair cut.  However, the rule was eventually changed to allow the use of a hair cover.  Therefore, an accommodation was made that allowed wrestlers to keep their long hair, dreadlocks, etc.

 Unfortunately, the above described solution proved imperfect as the covers kept falling off or getting tangled up in ear guard straps.  A few wrestling gear manufacturers solved this problem by designing covers that could be securely attached to the ear guards.  The NFHS  liked this innovation and, in 2015, they made a new rule that required all covers be so attached.  Seems entirely reasonable rather than racist to me. 

Edited by HurricaneWrestling2

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

×