Jump to content
1032004

WI State Champ out of states for 2 unsportsmanlikes

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, CoachWrestling said:

You clearly have the least objective opinion of anyone in here being a ref yourself. 

I don't believe I ever mentioned objectivity in any way, just emotionalism. I started out giving nothing more than a clinical description of the events based upon the only evidence available. Several people who did not like the fact this wrestler is suspended from the post season were making what I believe to be emotional comments and posts (in some cases they were personal, vitriolic, and unwarranted) which go beyond the evidence we have. I pointed this out repeatedly and quite honestly objectively. Nothing more nothing less. 

I was going to say more but it's no longer worth it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, tbert said:

The social warriors have found probably the only sane person involved to blame,  a ref who was merely doing his job the best he could by officiating by the book.

You're blaming the parents for what happened to this kid - if anyone's a "social justice warrior", it's you. The kid is accountable for the actions he chose to take, regardless of whether he has poor role models as parents.

No one is saying there shouldn't be consequences for the kid's poor decisions - it's more of an argument over whether the punishment fits the crime.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fletcher said:

You're blaming the parents for what happened to this kid - if anyone's a "social justice warrior", it's you. The kid is accountable for the actions he chose to take, regardless of whether he has poor role models as parents.

No one is saying there shouldn't be consequences for the kid's poor decisions - it's more of an argument over whether the punishment fits the crime.

 

I thought the argument was whether a crime had been committed in the first place.

Share this post


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

I thought the argument was whether a crime had been committed in the first place.

I don't think anyone thinks that the kid didn't deserve one UC or wasnt out of line in anyway. @Fletcher is right that the arguement is that the consequences are far too harsh. There is a reason that this situation is unique. It's not because of what the kid did. We see that in wrestling all the time. It is because we rarely, if ever see two back-to-back UC like that, especially for something that wasn't that big of a deal.

Share this post


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

You're blaming the parents for what happened to this kid - if anyone's a "social justice warrior", it's you. The kid is accountable for the actions he chose to take, regardless of whether he has poor role models as parents.

No one is saying there shouldn't be consequences for the kid's poor decisions - it's more of an argument over whether the punishment fits the crime.

 

Really dont have the time to waste spelling it out for you.  Carry on blaming the ref for following the rules.

Share this post


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

doing his job the best he could by officiating by the book.

It's also by the book to make a no-call. You can go either way and you'd be right. I'd just like to see more refs not insulate themselves with the rules book and quickly dole out the death penalty to an immature kid who could be more effectively dealt with by reprimanding/scolding short of total DQ. Discretion is the better part of valor. (Shakespeare)

Share this post


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

I don't think anyone thinks that the kid didn't deserve one UC or wasnt out of line in anyway. @Fletcher is right that the arguement is that the consequences are far too harsh. There is a reason that this situation is unique. It's not because of what the kid did. We see that in wrestling all the time. It is because we rarely, if ever see two back-to-back UC like that, especially for something that wasn't that big of a deal.

Rarely, if ever? While I'm sure it's not terribly common, "rarely if ever" is certainly a stretch.   Even with the 2 UC's in this case, we wouldn't have heard about it if the state qualifying tournament was not the next competition (or likely even if the kid wasn't a returning state champ or placer).

I do agree with Fletcher that the argument should be more about whether or not the punishment fits the crime.   But anyone saying that the kid didn't deserve the second UC is not making that argument.  If he only gets one UC, there's no suspension.

Based on the evidence, I do think he deserved both UC's.  But I do also think the consequences are too harsh.  The penalty is supposed to be missing the next competition, but in this case it's really 3 competitions or however many there are in WI's state tournament.

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Cooch1 said:

It's also by the book to make a no-call. You can go either way and you'd be right. I'd just like to see more refs not insulate themselves with the rules book and quickly dole out the death penalty to an immature kid who could be more effectively dealt with by reprimanding/scolding short of total DQ. Discretion is the better part of valor. 

 

I'm not sure about the discretion , either you see it or you dont.  I dont believe making a no call is in the book , but if you tell me where I will look it up. I guess He certainly showed some discretion when he did not call a slam on the first takedown and NF.  I would of.

So if I understand you correctly the ref should not follow the written rules only when he feels like it and turn his head the other way,  dependant on a disqualification.  Kind of scary precedent he would be setting.

Is reprimanding (other than penalties)and scolding also in the book?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tbert said:

I'm not sure about the discretion , either you see it or you dont.  I dont believe making a no call is in the book , but if you tell me where I will look it up. I guess He certainly showed some discretion when he did not call a slam on the first takedown and NF.  I would of.

So if I understand you correctly the ref should not follow the written rules only when he feels like it and turn his head the other way,  dependant on a disqualification.  Kind of scary precedent he would be setting.

Is reprimanding (other than penalties)and scolding also in the book?  

The non scary precedent is already in existence: tolerant refs who don't call a quick flex since it may in the ref's judgement be overlooked as nonviolent or in the refs' judgement as non-disrepectful. The no-call is not in the book; it's in the eye of the beholder who has the authority to make it either way depending on his degree of tolerance and understanding. 

What's in the book began in the head; it's human, not written in stone. At any rate why not keep everything the same except redefine the punishment as pertaining to the next dual meet or some other event in his life. Allow the kid to move on unless you're really into punitive authority. We can punish the kid w/o  punching the kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, then let's change the book maybe to say, before giving two UC violations, take into account the feelings of the wrestler and what ramifications it may have down the road.  

Everyone is hooked on the flex, a flex in excitement itself is probably not a taunting violation.  A flex with a roar in the face of an opponent or opposing team or coach or ref or fan base, might be.  This ref thought so.  So did I.

Kid probably gets over it.  Hopefully the parents do too.

Share this post


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

Ok, then let's change the book maybe to say, before giving two UC violations, take into account the feelings of the wrestler and what ramifications it may have down the road.  

Everyone is hooked on the flex, a flex in excitement itself is probably not a taunting violation.  A flex with a roar in the face of an opponent or opposing team or coach or ref or fan base, might be.  This ref thought so.  So did I.

Kid probably gets over it.  Hopefully the parents do too.

I didn't pick up on any roar in the face (No sound available). I agree with all you say except "Kid probably gets over it.

Kid probably won't get over not being the state champ or having the chance. And probably has issues beyond the mat, at home is my bet. I see your point w/ the ref impractically taking a slow several seconds for a judicious time-out to " take into account the feelings...  and ramifications."  Wouldn't be much of a ref, probably be out of work. I've seen good refs, though, who quickly decide to overlook any kind of flex rather than quickly be a tough guy. Either is perfectly legal, just as a bordrline slam-TD or no-slam TD is in the eye of the beholder... and legal.  

Anyway, yea, let's change the book to read something like "remove from the next event, not occuring at the end of current season." Kid gets punished and gets to move on. win-win.

BTW, ever seen A Few Good Men? The "Code Red" was not in the book, explicitly. Some things are only understood implicitly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you know, if I were a ref and just had the kid drop the F bomb on me a few seconds before I think I might have something of a hair trigger with respect to any additional shenanigans. The point is that the flex thing didn't happen in isolation, it came right on the heels of something else that prompted the ref to tag him with a penalty. And too, the WIAA had just sent out extra notices warning everyone - refs included - that bad behavior was not to be tolerated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, npope said:

But you know, if I were a ref and just had the kid drop the F bomb on me a few seconds before I think I might have something of a hair trigger with respect to any additional shenanigans. The point is that the flex thing didn't happen in isolation, it came right on the heels of something else that prompted the ref to tag him with a penalty. And too, the WIAA had just sent out extra notices warning everyone - refs included - that bad behavior was not to be tolerated. 

Very true, I see it is Racine County court now.  

Share this post


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

Sounds like they are trying to get him eligible for JV tourney to serve o e match suspension. 

Nope - that was only a rumor started by someone on the WI forum that was discredited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word on the WI website is that the court issued an injunction allowing him to wrestle.

Per the wrestler's family lawyer:

“My biggest question for the WIAA is, ‘Why can’t you let him compete provisionally?’” he added. “There’s a provision in the WIAA rules that allows for the undoing of an athletes accomplishments; if we are overruled in this case, then just strip him of his title if he ends up winning it all.”

Maybe he should have a conversation with the third place wrestler at the sectional meet (the qualifying event for state where only the top two move on) to see if there is no harm in just settling all of this at a later date.

What a bunch of BS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, npope said:

Word on the WI website is that the court issued an injunction allowing him to wrestle.

Per the wrestler's family lawyer:

“My biggest question for the WIAA is, ‘Why can’t you let him compete provisionally?’” he added. “There’s a provision in the WIAA rules that allows for the undoing of an athletes accomplishments; if we are overruled in this case, then just strip him of his title if he ends up winning it all.”

Maybe he should have a conversation with the third place wrestler at the sectional meet (the qualifying event for state where only the top two move on) to see if there is no harm in just settling all of this at a later date.

What a bunch of BS

WIAA already stripped a wrestler of a state title several years ago when Lampe was ruled ineligible after winning the title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, jchapman said:

WIAA already stripped a wrestler of a state title several years ago when Lampe was ruled ineligible after winning the title.

that was another real strange one...    sibling fight turns criminal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, jchapman said:

WIAA already stripped a wrestler of a state title several years ago when Lampe was ruled ineligible after winning the title.

Understood - but stripping the title from the guy after-the-fact does nothing for the kids beaten along the way by that guy - they don't get to go to state or compete for placement. Other people get screwed because this kid was a dick. Sorry, but that just sucks.

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

×