ESPN reporting on wrestling referee incident

[rhodge00 7]

I not don't the rules on this anymore, but back when I wrestled, being 80's and 90's, we had a hair rule, it would not touch your collar of your shirt or be longer. I remember being at a college tournament and when we were inspected by the ref, he made me get my hair cut. Now when my coach cut it, it was pretty rough and very high, he also taught me a lesion. LOL. I disagree on how this ref handled this, should have been done before the match  started. Not at mat side.  I was not scared for life over it, yes was I embarrassed, yes, but it also taught me a lesion, that there are rules in life and you can either decide to follow them, or if you choose not to, then there a risk you could have to get your hair cut, or no be aloud to compete.

[BigTenFanboy 1,790]

39 minutes ago, Katie said:

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.

It actually is though. If a wrestlers reports to the mat illegally equiped the opposing wrestler is awarded 1 point and the injury clock is started. I agree the ref should have checked, however before each meet the ref also speaks to both teams going over the sportsmanship rule as well as asking the coach "please certify that all competitors are legally equiped according to NFHS Rules and regulations." 

If you want to say the rule is unfair or stupid I will agree. If you want to say the ref should have just allowed Johnson to use his illegal hair cover, I would agree again. However your interpretation of the rule itself is inaccurate.

[BigTenFanboy 1,790]

Here's are some similar examples which i have witnessed or dealt with first hand.

1. A wrestler reported to the mat with earings in his ears under his headgear. Mid match his headgear came off and the ref saw the earings. The opposing wrestler was awarded a point, injury time was started and the wrestler had 90 seconds to remove his earings to become legally equipped.

2. A wrestler reported to the mat without his shoe laces secured or taped. The opposing wrestler was awarded a point, injury time was started and the wrestler had 90 seconds to tape his laces to become legally equipped

3. A wrestler reported to the mat with his headgear straps crossed. The opposing wrestler was awarded a point, injury time was started and the wrestler had 90 seconds to uncross the straps of his headgear to become legally equipped.

4. This rule was changed several years ago, but it used to be illegal to have your boxers stick out from the bottom of your singlet. A wrestler mid match had his boxers sticking out. The opposing wrestler was awarded a point, injury time was started and the wrestler had 90 seconds to change his draws. He didnt have any other and its illegal to go commando so he ended up forfeiting the match due to the injury clock running out of time.

 

Give Johnson 90 seconds to correct the equipment issue is not something that was created out of thin air. It has been standard operating practice for atleast 20 years.

Edited December 25, 2018 by BigTenFanboy

[AHamilton 1,026]

1 hour ago, Katie said:

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.

The word "contemplate" is being misused repeatedly.

[Katie 1,076]

1 minute ago, AHamilton said:

The word "contemplate" is being misused repeatedly.

 

3 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

The word "contemplate" is being misused repeatedly.

I don't know man. The Supreme Court regularly uses the term "contemplate" in exactly the same way. For example, in the 2014 case McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court wrote: " The First Amendment does not contemplate such 'ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits.'"

[Katie 1,076]

35 minutes ago, BigTenFanboy said:

It actually is though. If a wrestlers reports to the mat illegally equiped the opposing wrestler is awarded 1 point and the injury clock is started. I agree the ref should have checked, however before each meet the ref also speaks to both teams going over the sportsmanship rule as well as asking the coach "please certify that all competitors are legally equiped according to NFHS Rules and regulations." 

If you want to say the rule is unfair or stupid I will agree. If you want to say the ref should have just allowed Johnson to use his illegal hair cover, I would agree again. However your interpretation of the rule itself is inaccurate.

The simple fact is that the rules do not address a situation where a referee fails to check a head cover either at weigh ins or upon his arrival at the site. That being so, any actions a referee takes after such a failure is simply not addressed by the rules.

I do not understand why that is a controversial idea.

[1032004 1,406]

1 hour ago, Katie said:

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.

 

Uh, yes it is.

The rule clearly states “reporting to the scorers table not properly equipped is a technical violation.”  It doesn’t say “reporting to the scorers table not properly equipped is a technical violation unless the ref forgot to check your hair cover previously”

It also clearly states it must be corrected within the 1.5 minute injury time.  Not sure why this is a difficult concept to grasp.

Edited December 25, 2018 by 1032004

[AHamilton 1,026]

I can deal with the constitution contemplating something;  Not the NFHS rules.

Actually, you are incorrect...Rule 3 section 1 article 2:  "...The referee has the sole authority for ruling on infractions or irregularities not covered within the NFHS rules."

Buy a rulebook Katie.  And read it.

 

Finally- it has been stated that the referee gave the kid two choices. Forfeit or cut his hair.  The third choice is the easiest: wear the proper hair cover.  This has been a rule for at least four years. Hair covers must be attached to the headgear.  Shame on the coaches. 

Edited December 25, 2018 by AHamilton

[BigTenFanboy 1,790]

6 minutes ago, Katie said:

The simple fact is that the rules do not address a situation where a referee fails to check a head cover either at weigh ins or upon his arrival at the site. That being so, any actions a referee takes after such a failure is simply not addressed by the rules.

I do not understand why that is a controversial idea.

Because it is ultimately the coaches/wrestlers job to report to the mat legally equipped. The ref cannot prevent someone from reporting to the mat. Once they report the ref determines whether they are legally equipped. It is impossible to determine if a wrestler is legally equipped until he/she/they report to the mat.

Let me say this. I think the ref should have just let it go. I also will not lose any sleep over him not reffing due to his use of a racial slur in the past.

However you're explanation/interpretation of the rule itself is inaccurate.

[BigTenFanboy 1,790]

I noticed that according to the statement released from the family's lawyer, he acknowledges that the rule states the hair cover must attach to the headgear.

[AHamilton 1,026]

So, a real issue is with the referee that let it slide previously.

[Katie 1,076]

6 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

I can deal with the constitution contemplating something;  Not the NFHS rules.

Actually, you are incorrect...Rule 3 section 1 article 2:  "...The referee has the sole authority for ruling on infractions or irregularities not covered within the NFHS rules."

Buy a rulebook Katie.  And read it.

 

Finally- it has been stated that the referee gave the kid two choices. Forfeit or cut his hair.  The third choice is the easiest: wear the proper hair cover.  This has been a rule for at least four years. Hair covers must be attached to the headgear.  Shame on the coaches. 

It's actually very common language in legal writing, and it extends well beyond the Constitution. For example, in the 2016 case Williams v. Correction Officer Priatno, the Second Circuit wrote, "The regulations simply do not contemplate the situation in which Williams found himself . . . ." I could go on. The simple fact is that I used the word "contemplate" correctly.

As for your interpretation of Rule 3-1-2, I do not agree with it. I do not think it would make any sense to give referees complete discretion over their own failure to comply with the rules. I think it makes more sense to just acknowledge that the rules do not contemplate a referee failing to check head covers either at weigh ins or upon arrival at the site.

[AHamilton 1,026]

Its not an interpretation... it is the rule.  Contemplate that for a moment.

Buena knew they were in violation of the rule and tried to pull a fast one.  And you, sir, are a troll.  Good day...

Edited December 25, 2018 by AHamilton

[Katie 1,076]

2 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

Its not an interpretation... it is the rule.  Contemplate that for a moment.

Okay, so you're now mocking me personally. Nice. I'll be sure to avoid you from now on.

[bp2xbw 33]

14 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

Its not an interpretation... it is the rule.  Contemplate that for a moment.

Buena knew they were in violation of the rule and tried to pull a fast one.  And you, sir, are a troll.  Good day...

Yup Buena Coaches tried to pull a fast one. Besides, they know Maloney well, every long time SJ fan does,  they know how he rolls.  He's a stickler for the rules. 

[npope 174]

So let me ask Katie this question. Assume a ref forgot to check the length of a competitor's fingernails at the weigh in and then, upon reporting to the score's table prior to the actual match it can be seen that the wrestler's fingernails are long and sharp like claws. At that point, everyone, including the ref, is powerless to intercede and prevent the match from continuing? What you are arguing is that, according to the rule book, the ref has one, and only one, opportunity to do a physical examination of the competitors - after that the ref is obliged to just let the match happen. Everyone else here is saying that isn't the case; there are additional rules in place that require certain standards be met before a match takes place, but you are saying "no" - you are arguing that there was but one moment when the ref had the chance to make a call and that in this instance, he missed it.

Please think about the position you are taking on this issue and ask yourself whether that makes any sense.

[1032004 1,406]

On 12/24/2018 at 8:53 AM, 1032004 said:

There are a lot of examples of people saying/doing/tweeting racist things and keeping their jobs after apologizing.  See Jimmy Kempski and the at least 3 MLB players that it happened to just this year.

 

Looks like we can add Lebron to this list after his recent anti-Semitic post.

[Katie 1,076]

11 minutes ago, npope said:

So let me ask Katie this question. Assume a ref forgot to check the length of a competitor's fingernails at the weigh in and then, upon reporting to the score's table prior to the actual match it can be seen that the wrestler's fingernails are long and sharp like claws. At that point, everyone, including the ref, is powerless to intercede and prevent the match from continuing? What you are arguing is that, according to the rule book, the ref has one, and only one, opportunity to do a physical examination of the competitors - after that the ref is obliged to just let the match happen. Everyone else here is saying that isn't the case; there are additional rules in place that require certain standards be met before a match takes place, but you are saying "no" - you are arguing that there was but one moment when the ref had the chance to make a call and that in this instance, he missed it.

Please think about the position you are taking on this issue and ask yourself whether that makes any sense.

I am not saying that the referee was obligated to allow Johnson to compete with a non-compliant head cover. I am saying that once a referee fails to check a head cover at the proper time, the rules do not provide a guide as to what should happen next. 

[npope 174]

Just now, Katie said:

I am not saying that the referee was obligated to allow Johnson to compete with a non-compliant head cover. I am saying that once a referee fails to check a head cover at the proper time, the rules do not provide a guide as to what should happen next. 

Do you agree that there is a rule that states that all competitors must report to the mat prepared to wrestle? And "prepared to wrestle" means having the correct equipment, etc. If yes, who exactly do you think that rule appoints as the enforcer of that rule? The time keeper? The score keeper? Maybe the ref? If you don't think such a rule exists I am sure someone would be helpful enough to bring it to our attention.

[Katie 1,076]

4 minutes ago, npope said:

Do you agree that there is a rule that states that all competitors must report to the mat prepared to wrestle? And "prepared to wrestle" means having the correct equipment, etc. If yes, who exactly do you think that rule appoints as the enforcer of that rule? The time keeper? The score keeper? Maybe the ref? If you don't think such a rule exists I am sure someone would be helpful enough to bring it to our attention.

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 begins.

 

[AHamilton 1,026]

39 minutes ago, npope said:

So let me ask Katie this question. Assume a ref forgot to check the length of a competitor's fingernails at the weigh in and then, upon reporting to the score's table prior to the actual match it can be seen that the wrestler's fingernails are long and sharp like claws. At that point, everyone, including the ref, is powerless to intercede and prevent the match from continuing? What you are arguing is that, according to the rule book, the ref has one, and only one, opportunity to do a physical examination of the competitors - after that the ref is obliged to just let the match happen. Everyone else here is saying that isn't the case; there are additional rules in place that require certain standards be met before a match takes place, but you are saying "no" - you are arguing that there was but one moment when the ref had the chance to make a call and that in this instance, he missed it.

Please think about the position you are taking on this issue and ask yourself whether that makes any sense.

Good point... same with skin conditions that may become apparent during the match.  Oops the designated official missed the herpes gladitorium during skin checks... now Junior is entitled to wrestle with it

[BigTenFanboy 1,790]

7 minutes 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 begins.

 

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.

[1032004 1,406]

18 minutes 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 begins.

 

I can’t tell if you’re serious or trolling at this point.

The rule doesn’t “assume” anything.  It’s perfectly clear - reporting to the scorers table not properly equipped is a technical violation.   He did have advance notice - the rule book.  Not to mention the 2+ previous refs that also warned him of the problem.  Even though he was permitted to wrestle at the prior tournament without the required hair cover, he was reportedly still notified that it should be required.

[boconnell 1,623]

13 minutes 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 begins.

 

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.

[1032004 1,406]

19 minutes 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.

 

I would argue the ref did show some flexibility by not awarding the required 1 match point to his opponent for the technical violation.

I agree with you that the coach bears a lot of responsibility here for not being prepared.  Maybe I missed it but I didn’t see JB share that sentiment.  All I saw was him criticize the coach for allowing his hair to be cut.

Edited December 25, 2018 by 1032004