Jump to content
1032004

WI State Champ out of states for 2 unsportsmanlikes

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Zebra said:

You assume it was not a big deal, but you do not know the full context. Again you are showing your bias. 

I am going by what I see. That is it. There is no bias in that. However, when you say it is probably justified because there could be way more to the story because your experience has shown that YOU and other refs would have had to have another reason, that is bias. You are unable to look at it objectively. It seems to me in your mind it cant be wrong because refs can't do wrong. Frankly, if there is so much more to this story, and the ref knows something about this kid that we don't know, is he still acting as an impartial agent? 

 

18 minutes ago, Zebra said:

One thing I can say is they always know more than any guy who sits in the stands. 

If this were true, there would never be bad calls and there would be no need for instant replay in college. Its just not true all the time. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, russelscout said:

I am going by what I see. That is it. There is no bias in that. However, when you say it is probably justified because there could be way more to the story because your experience has shown that YOU and other refs would have had to have another reason, that is bias. You are unable to look at it objectively. It seems to me in your mind it cant be wrong because refs can't do wrong. Frankly, if there is so much more to this story, and the ref knows something about this kid that we don't know, is he still acting as an impartial agent? 

You see a single angle video with limited audio and are making assumptions about what you do not see or know then assume the ref is wrong, that is the very definition of bias. You still have not shown me anything to contradict what the ref did beyond internet rantings. There is no bias in me not reacting emotionally. I am in fact looking at it completely objectively with 15 years of experience.    

 

11 minutes ago, russelscout said:

If this were true, there would never be bad calls and there would be no need for instant replay in college. Its just not true all the time. 

 

Knowing more and making human mistakes are not the same thing. 

Share this post


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

I also seem to recall two other post match infractions which were controversial at the time. One in I believe NY where a kid threw his headgear in celebration then lost do to the penalty. And another in PA (state finals I believe) where a kid kept getting penalized and lost in OT on a penalty. He swore at the ref and received a Flagrant Misconduct call and DQd out losing his runner-up position. 

 

These things happen every few years. 

NY wrestler was C.J Rodriguez. he threw his headgear in the air celebrating just winning the NY state title. think score was 8-7. Was dinged 2 points by the ref and lost 9-8. Him and his parents even took NY state to court trying to over turn the decision. Not sure how the court case went.

Share this post


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

You see a single angle video with limited audio and are making assumptions about what you do not see or know then assume the ref is wrong, that is the very definition of bias. You still have not shown me anything to contradict what the ref did beyond internet rantings. There is no bias in me not reacting emotionally. I am in fact looking at it completely objectively with 15 years of experience.    

 

Knowing more and making human mistakes are not the same thing. 

Again, you are the one taking the biased position by assuming that there has to be some reason not visible on camera to explain the decision by the official. If that context comes out, I'm sure russell will adjust his view accordingly. However, that has not come out at this point and to assume it will because surely no official would ever go on a power trip is a bias that comes from your association with being an official. I've seen many officials across all sports take advantage of a position of authority that they don't have in any other aspect of their lives and abuse it. There are tons of sociological studies on phenomena like this. Give someone authority and they are very likely to wield it unfairly at some point. From my vantage point, it looks like the wrestler showed up the official arguing the call and deserved the point penalty. He then celebrated his victory. The official felt he was shown up in front of the crowd and hit him again, unfairly in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sublime607 said:

NY wrestler was C.J Rodriguez. he threw his headgear in the air celebrating just winning the NY state title. think score was 8-7. Was dinged 2 points by the ref and lost 9-8. Him and his parents even took NY state to court trying to over turn the decision. Not sure how the court case went.

Thanks. I just went back and read a story and it was his 3rd infraction and before he shook hands which is way it was 2 points. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, qc8223 said:

Again, you are the one taking the biased position by assuming that there has to be some reason not visible on camera to explain the decision by the official. If that context comes out, I'm sure russell will adjust his view accordingly. However, that has not come out at this point and to assume it will because surely no official would ever go on a power trip is a bias that comes from your association with being an official. I've seen many officials across all sports take advantage of a position of authority that they don't have in any other aspect of their lives and abuse it. There are tons of sociological studies on phenomena like this. Give someone authority and they are very likely to wield it unfairly at some point. From my vantage point, it looks like the wrestler showed up the official arguing the call and deserved the point penalty. He then celebrated his victory. The official felt he was shown up in front of the crowd and hit him again, unfairly in my opinion.

Giving an experienced official the benefit of the doubt when no evidence showing he was incorrect has been put forward is not bias, it is logical. Refs do not go out and make two UC calls in a row very often and when they do it will be with good reason. Just because we do not see the reason in an obvious manner and a person with a lot of experience decides to not react in a manner you agree with does not make them biased. Again all I ask is for you to show me anything which shows the ref was wrong.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Saints should have been in the super bowl.....

Argue all we want, the call was made.    I have coached and officiated both for many years and I can tell you some much worse calls.  One that cost a kid a state tournament.  Point is, it is done and the ref's opinion. Also, his opinion is the one that counts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Zebra said:

Giving an experienced official the benefit of the doubt when no evidence showing he was incorrect has been put forward is not bias, it is logical. Refs do not go out and make two UC calls in a row very often and when they do it will be with good reason. Just because we do not see the reason in an obvious manner and a person with a lot of experience decides to not react in a manner you agree with does not make them biased. Again all I ask is for you to show me anything which shows the ref was wrong.  

This is exactly what we've been trying to point out to you. That is a demonstration of your bias because there is absolutely nothing to support that assumption. And to answer your last claim, the whole outrage over this incident is that a majority of people disagree with the referee's interpretation of the rules. I don't agree with his decision to hit the kid a second time. I don't think that was warranted from what I can see on video. It would take more evidence to convince me it's justified. My view is based on the evidence available. Your view is based on the assumption that some new evidence will show he's not wrong. For argument's sake, if what we see on video is the complete story and that the kid was DQed for that flex, do you agree with that interpretation of the taunting rule?

Share this post


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

And the Saints should have been in the super bowl.....

Argue all we want, the call was made.    I have coached and officiated both for many years and I can tell you some much worse calls.  One that cost a kid a state tournament.  Point is, it is done and the ref's opinion. Also, his opinion is the one that counts.

 

Um ... this one cost the kid the state tournament too.

If you don't want people discussing matches after they're over, you're on the wrong part of the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, qc8223 said:

This is exactly what we've been trying to point out to you. That is a demonstration of your bias because there is absolutely nothing to support that assumption. And to answer your last claim, the whole outrage over this incident is that a majority of people disagree with the referee's interpretation of the rules. I don't agree with his decision to hit the kid a second time. I don't think that was warranted from what I can see on video. It would take more evidence to convince me it's justified. My view is based on the evidence available. Your view is based on the assumption that some new evidence will show he's not wrong. For argument's sake, if what we see on video is the complete story and that the kid was DQed for that flex, do you agree with that interpretation of the taunting rule?

I understand what you are trying to say but completely disagree with you precisely because I have extensive experience in this area and the vast majority of people do not. I am not assuming there is "evidence proving he is right" I am assuming, again based upon experience, you do not have the whole story and are making assumptions. I am saying we do not have all the information and a person who was right there with experience and charged with making those decisions did so in accordance to the rules. Nothing in that video shows otherwise. You don't agree with his decision because you think the penalty is too harsh. That is not a logical position. 

Keep in mind this is not some beginning of the year event with a rookie ref. Refs like you are attempting to describe, and I assume ascribe those characteristics to this ref, do not make it to the post season and ref a title match. At least in 15 years I've never seen one. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, teach said:

"is that a majority of people disagree with the referee's interpretation of the rules"

 

qc8223 are you sure about this?

I could be wrong. I'm happy to walk that back a little, but 90% of what I've seen online has been very critical of the decision. At the very least, the controversy suggests that a significant chunk of people do disagree.

Share this post


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

And if a longtime poster on this board, who was at the event, is right in saying that he intentionally flexed in the direction of an opposing team that he wrestled for last year, wouldn't you consider that blatant taunting? 

I'm guessing,but probably about 1/3 of those in attendance knew the history of this wrestler and and prior situations. Obviously the fans from the two teams in the race knew.  Im also guessing that the ref, being an athletic director from a school 30 miles from these two schools, knew of the situation with this particular wrestler.  I'm also guessing that many more of those in attendance knew the team title was close.  I'm also guessing that the refs, coaches, fans and especially the kids are aware of the antics of Steveson, Ashnault and Desanto and many others.  The WIAA sent out notification to athletic directors, before tournament time, in all schools on specifically this subject of behavior and what would not be tolerated.  If this was not passed down to coaches, parents and athletes or if it was not taken serious that is not the ref's fault.  He called a good match. In my opinion the wrestler caught a break and got away with a body slam also.  

It was an exciting team race tourney, and is unfortunate that this kid made a few bad choices that cost his team the win and cost him advancing to the regionals /sectionals./state.   There are a many lessons to be learned from the kid and  a few people who let this kid down.  The kid got wrapped up in a situation that was probably started by  parental decisions and he was put out there to fight that battle.  The kid won the match.  He used profanity toward a ref,  he then taunted his prior year fan base.  His behavior after the match,  cost him the season.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Zebra said:

I understand what you are trying to say but completely disagree with you precisely because I have extensive experience in this area and the vast majority of people do not. I am not assuming there is "evidence proving he is right" I am assuming, again based upon experience, you do not have the whole story and are making assumptions. I am saying we do not have all the information and a person who was right there with experience and charged with making those decisions did so in accordance to the rules. Nothing in that video shows otherwise. You don't agree with his decision because you think the penalty is too harsh. That is not a logical position. 

Keep in mind this is not some beginning of the year event with a rookie ref. Refs like you are attempting to describe, and I assume ascribe those characteristics to this ref, do not make it to the post season and ref a title match. At least in 15 years I've never seen one. 

 

"I am not doing X. What I am actually doing is X." I disagree with the decision not because the penalty is too harsh, but because I don't think the celebration warranted a second penalty. The punishment is a whole different discussion. I am basing my decision on the available evidence. You are assuming that we don't have the whole story and that is a big assumption that comes from you bias in favor of officials.

 Refs like you are attempting to describe, and I assume ascribe those characteristics to this ref, do not make it to the post season and ref a title match

Again, this is a huge assumption that you have no support for. Just last year there was a major controversy at the Indiana State Tournament when an official gave out a controversial stalling call to send a match to OT. He happened to be a booster for the feeder program of the school of the wrestler who benefited from the call. Following the call, there were lots of allegations on the that he had shown favoritism towards that school for years and yet, he was one of the top officials in the state. These things do happen and it's not always conscious. A lot of it is underlying bias that subtly influences the way we perceive situations, but can have a major impact on the outcomes. It's already been noted that official used to teach at Halter's opponent's school. He made two weird calls prior to the controversial exchange that stood out: a point for grabbing head gear on a half nelson and a stalling call with 20 seconds left on top when it looked like the bottom wrestler had mostly conceded the match. I think those two calls contributed to the exchange at the end over the escape call. If I am officiating a match where I used to teach at one of the schools involved and my school's guy is clinging to a one point lead with short time, how likely am I to hit him for stalling? As much as I want to say "just as likely as any guy" the science demonstrates that I'm more likely to give him more lee way whether I realize it or not.

Share this post


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

I'm guessing,but probably about 1/3 of those in attendance knew the history of this wrestler and and prior situations. Obviously the fans from the two teams in the race knew.  Im also guessing that the ref, being an athletic director from a school 30 miles from these two schools, knew of the situation with this particular wrestler.  I'm also guessing that many more of those in attendance knew the team title was close.  I'm also guessing that the refs, coaches, fans and especially the kids are aware of the antics of Steveson, Ashnault and Desanto and many others.  The WIAA sent out notification to athletic directors, before tournament time, in all schools on specifically this subject of behavior and what would not be tolerated.  If this was not passed down to coaches, parents and athletes or if it was not taken serious that is not the ref's fault.  He called a good match. In my opinion the wrestler caught a break and got away with a body slam also.  

It was an exciting team race tourney, and is unfortunate that this kid made a few bad choices that cost his team the win and cost him advancing to the regionals /sectionals./state.   There are a many lessons to be learned from the kid and  a few people who let this kid down.  The kid got wrapped up in a situation that was probably started by  parental decisions and he was put out there to fight that battle.  The kid won the match.  He used profanity toward a ref,  he then taunted his prior year fan base.  His behavior after the match,  cost him the season.  

 

This is the kind of context that can make the decision more understandable, even if I still disagree about the resulting penalty of not being able to wrestle at the state tournament. I just get really annoyed that many have to always trust the decision making of officials as if they are some bias-free entity and not regular ol' humans like the rest of us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, qc8223 said:

This is the kind of context that can make the decision more understandable, even if I still disagree about the resulting penalty of not being able to wrestle at the state tournament. I just get really annoyed that many have to always trust the decision making of officials as if they are some bias-free entity and not regular ol' humans like the rest of us. 

I get it. Not a good situation at all. .. and there are more allegations not brought up on this forum, but most are probably from the initial anger.  I have been critical of refs in the past, but in this case, in my opinion, whether intentional or just an temporary act of stupidity the first UC infraction of profanity should of had an impact on him.  It did not.  He had to "even the score" to the team he transferred from.  He may as well just gave the ref the middle finger.

There were two  tournaments that this wrestler would still have to advance through to get to state,  which he probably would have been the favorite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is there is more evidence that shows that the ref was probably in the wrong, then there is that shows he was right. From what the video shows and the posts about the kids dad, the ref could have easily been a little flustered with the kid from the initial UC (which was the right call) and this fan snapping at him, which could have swayed his decision to hit the kid again. If the kid just flexed, he should not of got hit with the second UC. 

Share this post


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

As for the escape, speaking as a zebra, wrestlers do not need to be separated for there to be a "loss of control". When a reversal is "in progress" there will be a point where there is a loss of control but we allow the situation to continue so as to not award an escape then TD for 3 points as opposed to the 2 for a reversal. If time runs out, as in this case, and there was a loss of control we are to award the escape. That is what appears to have happened here. Keep in mind we cannot see the other side in this video and the ref is right there so I will give the benefit of the doubt to the ref. 

 

Please quote directly from a rule book that describes this "loss of control" being a scoring maneuver in folkstyle wrestling. 

 

It's not in any rule book or any case book that I have ever read and I would like to see the actual terminology, you know, since we are all about the rules and calling it right and all that.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zebra said:

The rest of this post is all ad homonym stuff about refs from someone who probably never even considered getting stripes. Refs are just people who in most cases are doing the best they can given the circumstances. It really is a thankless job. 

If it is a "thankless job,"* then why do it? Serious question: what is the appeal of putting on the stripes?  

My mom and dad have been ref'ing all sorts of sports for decades. I ref'ed for a few years in the early 00's and coached for 15. So, I've had the opportunity to hang out with a lot of your kind and have come to my own conclusions. But, I want to know what you think.

*Obviously, there is the renumeration; isn't this a thank-you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Molsen said:

The problem is there is more evidence that shows that the ref was probably in the wrong, then there is that shows he was right. From what the video shows and the posts about the kids dad, the ref could have easily been a little flustered with the kid from the initial UC (which was the right call) and this fan snapping at him, which could have swayed his decision to hit the kid again. If the kid just flexed, he should not of got hit with the second UC. 

I see your point, just disagree.  If he would of walked away after just receiving an UC, he would still be wrestling. 

Share this post


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

If it is a "thankless job,"* then why do it? Serious question: what is the appeal of putting on the stripes?  

My mom and dad have been ref'ing all sorts of sports for decades. I ref'ed for a few years in the early 00's and coached for 15. So, I've had the opportunity to hang out with a lot of your kind and have come to my own conclusions. But, I want to know what you think.

*Obviously, there is the renumeration; isn't this a thank-you?

I did it because I love the sport. Coaching interfered with family life but I could still be involved in the sport I loved a couple hours a week and a few weekends a year. I did a few "national" events and summer stuff too but I never did it for praise or money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zebra said:

Thanks. I just went back and read a story and it was his 3rd infraction and before he shook hands which is way it was 2 points. 

I was there for that match it seemed so long ago that I had a hard time remembering the details. But I do remember the confusion and the long delay I swear it seemed like a hour to straighten it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...