Jump to content
Greatdane67

ESPN reporting on wrestling referee incident

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

One contention I've had with this is that I think people are misreading the rule. It doesn't say that the hair has to BE in it's natural state but that if it was in its natural state it not be too long.

In articles I've read it seems to be that Maloney previously called a black wrestler for this when the hair wasn't necessarily too long but not in its natural state. It also said somewhere that the other kid in this match had hair over his eyebrows (I think that's how I read it- it was long). 

So to me this means anyone who combs, uses gel or spray is putting the hair into something other than its natural state.

He wasn't completely wrong here just possibly inconsistent in his ruling (especially since he was late). The kid and coaches should have had the legal covering.

As a friend of mine from down that way and sees this ref a lot said- He got nailed for the one he didn't do.

Yes but most of the reporting I saw was pretty vague on that point.  They claim he said “it’s not natural”, but I don’t think anything necessarily said that was his reason for saying the hair didn’t satisfy the rule.

As sheerstress noted, it needs to be in its natural state in order to determine if it’s too long.   And similar to what I mentioned,  if the claim was it was illegal because it “wasn’t natural,” how does cutting it shorter even fix that?  

I do agree that gel/hair spray is not natural and I believe I have seen guys been told they need to remove it.  Comb is a stretch though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This ref is going to make millions on the lawsuit!  And he should.  These moronic liberals.  God forbid we follow rules and in the end some poor minority doesn't benefit.  I am not a Trump fan, but the liberals, for the most part are so pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RED said:

This ref is going to make millions on the lawsuit!  And he should.  These moronic liberals.  God forbid we follow rules and in the end some poor minority doesn't benefit.  I am not a Trump fan, but the liberals, for the most part are so pathetic.

I bet you he doesn't even sue, and if he did and win, it would not be millions.  He'd get compensated for lost wages, which for a HS ref is a couple orders of magnitude less than a million.  

Share this post


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

I bet you he doesn't even sue, and if he did and win, it would not be millions.  He'd get compensated for lost wages, which for a HS ref is a couple orders of magnitude less than a million.  

He did send a letter asking for $100k, so I bet they’ll settle with him out of court.

I also imagine he’ll appeal the suspension. He does of course have past experience overturning suspensions.   The issue is that every school will say they don’t want him working there (or else they’ll probably be labeled racist), potentially giving him more reason to file another defamation lawsuit...

Share this post


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

He did send a letter asking for $100k, so I bet they’ll settle with him out of court.

I also imagine he’ll appeal the suspension. He does of course have past experience overturning suspensions.   The issue is that every school will say they don’t want him working there (or else they’ll probably be labeled racist), potentially giving him more reason to file another defamation lawsuit...

Defamation against who?  NJ just said he didn't follow protocols and suspended him.  They didn't call him a racist or defame him did they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Billyhoyle said:

Defamation against who?  NJ just said he didn't follow protocols and suspended him.  They didn't call him a racist or defame him did they?

Actually NJ and the rules interpreter said he made the correct call and then NJ sacrificed them both to appease the civil rights commission..About 5 major news stations and more then a few newspaper ran this story that the hair cutting was a racist act so I would guarantee this man has been harassed , probably received death threats , so yes he could absolutely sue for Defamation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Billyhoyle said:

Defamation against who?  NJ just said he didn't follow protocols and suspended him.  They didn't call him a racist or defame him did they?

True, he probably should be sueing the media companies instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've explained this several times to my outraged liberal friends (and I personally lean left):

First, this should have been handled between the kid and his coach in October/November when the kid reported to practice. It's the coaches' responsibility to communicate the rules to the wrestlers, and the school's responsibility to procure proper equipment. The coach should have known from the beginning whether the equipment was legal. I suspect that the equipment was furnished by the kid and his family rather than the coach/school. Either way, this should be the first point of discussion. I don't know who usually pays for special equipment these days, but it seems to me that it's in the schools' legal interest to do so. 

Next, if there was an equipment problem, then it should have been handled after weigh-ins. If the kid had illegal hair and wanted to wear special equipment, then that should have been approved at the same time as skin check, etc., in a locker room out of sight, between the kid, the coaches and the ref. It seems to me that this is where the ref screwed up. Or, if it IS within the rules to get past this stage without addressing the situation, then a rule needs to change so it doesn't happen again. 

Honestly, I first explain to my outraged friends that mat-side haircuts have a longer history affecting white kids - think about the hairstyles of the 70s and 80s. Cultural norms aside, if the rule is interpreted objectively, then this was within the rules and not unprecedented. Whether there should have been a more culturally-sensitive interpretation is a different discussion. Whether the ref had demonstrated racist behavior in the past is also a different discussion. Whether the rule should be changed is also a different discussion. When viewed objectively, this action was discriminatory of hair but not of race, despite the optics. Rather, it shows how a lackadaisical approach to interpreting rules can meet an unfortunate outcome.

 

It seems to me that the question is not about hair, natural state or whatever, but rather about equipment. I don't think a governing body can write rules about how people wear their hair without discriminating, so they should leave that alone. They can certainly write rules about what interferes with athletes' ability to compete, and the refs' ability to observe action - I'm thinking of Fix v Gilman and the no-call head gear grab: when challenged, the video evidence was not clear because Gilman's hand was not clearly visible within Fix's massive hair.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2019 at 11:44 PM, RED said:

This ref is going to make millions on the lawsuit!  And he should.  These moronic liberals.  God forbid we follow rules and in the end some poor minority doesn't benefit.  I am not a Trump fan, but the liberals, for the most part are so pathetic.

Interesting name there buddy. 

"RED" sounds very much like a "moronic liberal" code name to me ;-)))) You communist are always trying to get one over on us, aren't you "RED" [very clever].

Are you trying to subconsciously trick people with your nickname [if that is what it is--wink wink]. Are you a Russian spy? "RED" would be the perfect name for one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2019 at 2:50 PM, AnklePicker said:

This is right in my neck of the woods.  Fun fact the ref in question Alan Maloney went to the same high school as Jordan Burroughs, formerly Edgewood now Winslow.  

bp2xbw, They were both suspended for a year but both appealed and won their appeals after their confrontation.  

Apparently from other articles I've read while Maloney was in charge of the cadet refs he himself was consistently late for matches.  The hair issue should have been addressed prior to the match and we wouldn't be having these issues.  

While I do think Maloney is a racist (how can you not when he uses the N word when he's drunk and the truth comes out) I don't think this was racially motivated.  He's certainly an equal opportunity d*$#head when it comes to hair length and uniform issues.  Always has been.  

I for one am glad he's no longer in charge of the new cadet refs in the state.  As we all know the best refs are the ones you don't even realize are there.  He is the antithesis to that ideal.   

Perfect analysis.  Thanks. Greatly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2019 at 9:54 AM, ugarte said:

he does not have a viable lawsuit beyond nuisance value

Why not?   The NJSIAA suspended him despite the state rules interpreter saying he was right, and many media outlets defamed him.

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Why not?   The NJSIAA suspended him despite the state rules interpreter saying he was right, and many media outlets defamed him.

nobody defamed him. everyone expressed opinions about what they saw. the state rules interpreter was himself fired for a rules interpretation that was superficially neutral but which only affected kids with dreads. a lot of people here have interpreted "natural state" to preclude dreads but from what I've read, it isn't supposed to. dreads are unnatural in the same way a dye job is "unnatural" but for wrestling purposes, it is just a hairstyle.

he does not have a viable case.

Share this post


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

nobody defamed him. everyone expressed opinions about what they saw. the state rules interpreter was himself fired for a rules interpretation that was superficially neutral but which only affected kids with dreads. a lot of people here have interpreted "natural state" to preclude dreads but from what I've read, it isn't supposed to. dreads are unnatural in the same way a dye job is "unnatural" but for wrestling purposes, it is just a hairstyle.

he does not have a viable case.

You realize that his own coach and teammates are on the record acknowledging he needed the special head cover and he just forgot it that match. The ref was suspended solely because the civil rights commission got involved and it turned political, and anyone in NJ will tell you politicians  never miss a chance for a Photo op. The whole situation is an absolute joke so yes especially in a sue happy state like NJ he absolutely has a case. Going on TV and proclaiming he made the kid cut his hair because he was racist and the kid was black is pretty much the definition of defaming someone  

Edited by Antitroll2828

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2019 at 11:44 PM, RED said:

This ref is going to make millions on the lawsuit!  And he should.  These moronic liberals.  God forbid we follow rules and in the end some poor minority doesn't benefit.  I am not a Trump fan, but the liberals, for the most part are so pathetic.

Looks like you are starting a political discussion or at least trolling.   Moronic liberals?   The right wing now has a  near stranglehold and monopy on pathology, stupidity, willful ignorance, religious zealotry, anti-science, and corruption.  You obviously have your head in the sand and likely your hands on your wallet.  Wake up and watch something other than FOX propaganda.

https://whyy.org/articles/trumps-frightened-world-of-the-happily-stupid/

Edited by dmm53

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dmm53 said:

Looks like you are starting a political discussion or at least trolling.   Moronic liberals?   The right wing now has a  near stranglehold and monopy on pathology, stupidity, willful ignorance, religious zealotry, anti-science, and corruption.  You obviously have your head in the sand and likely your hands on your wallet.  Wake up and watch something other than FOX propaganda.

https://whyy.org/articles/trumps-frightened-world-of-the-happily-stupid/

Ok people like you the first guy you quoted are the biggest problem on this forum, nothing you said is relevant to anything wrestling related, take your own personal beliefs about politics and go to one of the 10000 other places on the internet where everyone else is a political savant nowadays and leave this for the wrestling world. I swear I’d rather have to read 100 jimmy Cinnabon posts about is penn state doomed or is Zain overrated then watch another person turn a wrestling related discussion into the comment section on a cnn article and then have it locked for everyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Antitroll2828 said:

You realize that his own coach and teammates are on the record acknowledging he needed the special head cover and he just forgot it that match. The ref was suspended solely because the civil rights commission got involved and it turned political, and anyone in NJ will tell you politicians  never miss a chance for a Photo op. The whole situation is an absolute joke so yes especially in a sue happy state like NJ he absolutely has a case. Going on TV and proclaiming he made the kid cut his hair because he was racist and the kid was black is pretty much the definition of defaming someone  

he won't even make it to a jury

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dmm53 said:

Looks like you are starting a political discussion or at least trolling.   Moronic liberals?   The right wing now has a  near stranglehold and monopy on pathology, stupidity, willful ignorance, religious zealotry, anti-science, and corruption.  You obviously have your head in the sand and likely your hands on your wallet.  Wake up and watch something other than FOX propaganda.

https://whyy.org/articles/trumps-frightened-world-of-the-happily-stupid/

I come right out and say I am not a fan of Trump, and to support your point, you post an anti-Trump article.  Sharp, real sharp.  Oh, and by the way, I was referencing "moronic liberals."  Guess what, there are moronic liberals, and there are liberals who are not moronic.  I was referencing just those that are moronic.  Just like conservatives.  There are moronic conservatives and conservatives who are not moronic. 

Taking all this into account, perhaps you might like to rethink your response, which in light of my explanation, makes absolutely no sense.  I am waiting to see if you apologize or come back with some "moronic" response.  Should be interesting.  I'm betting you crawl under a rock and refrain from responding.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, dmm53 said:

Looks like you are starting a political discussion or at least trolling.   Moronic liberals?   The right wing now has a  near stranglehold and monopy on pathology, stupidity, willful ignorance, religious zealotry, anti-science, and corruption.  You obviously have your head in the sand and likely your hands on your wallet.  Wake up and watch something other than FOX propaganda.

https://whyy.org/articles/trumps-frightened-world-of-the-happily-stupid/

I would not say the right has a "monopoly" on anti-science.  The left is doing a pretty good job with that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, ugarte said:

nobody defamed him. everyone expressed opinions about what they saw. the state rules interpreter was himself fired for a rules interpretation that was superficially neutral but which only affected kids with dreads. a lot of people here have interpreted "natural state" to preclude dreads but from what I've read, it isn't supposed to. dreads are unnatural in the same way a dye job is "unnatural" but for wrestling purposes, it is just a hairstyle.

he does not have a viable case.

It may be tougher to find major news outlets outright calling him a racist (although many less respected ones did), but many of the articles were titled something like “referee forces wrestler to cut dreadlocks,” which is a lie.  

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 1032004 said:

It may be tougher to find major news outlets outright calling him a racist (although many less respected ones did), but many of the articles were titled something like “referee forces wrestler to cut dreadlocks,” which is a lie.  

neither "racist" (protected opinion, also he was previously suspended for using the n-word in anger so...) nor "forces wrestler to cut his hair" (substantially true, since the wrestler had the choice of haircut or forfeit) are grounds for a defamation claim. if he sues it will be dismissed without a trial.

Edited by ugarte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ugarte said:

neither "racist" (protected opinion, also he was previously suspended for using the n-word in anger so...) nor "forces wrestler to cut his hair" (substantially true, since the wrestler had the choice of haircut or forfeit) are grounds for a defamation claim. if he sues it will be dismissed without a trial.

How do you know?  Are you a lawyer?

I also bet he experienced lost business (and probably threats) at his real place of business as a result of the (often biased) reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...