Posted on

Reader says rather than write a story about perseverance and the competitive spirit we write a story to gin up racist hatred

a “black teen” WAS NOT FORCED to cut his hair by a “white referee”.
The athlete was not in compliance with the rules.
The referee was enforcing the rules.
The athlete elected to come into compliance, competed and won.
It’s as simple as that.
But rather than write a story about perserverence and the competitive spirit we write a story to gin up racist hatred.
1. The student athlete was NOT IN COMPLIANCE with the RULES.
2. The referee enforce the rules by giving the athlete the choice to come in compliance with the rules within the specified time limit or forfeit the match.
3. The student athlete was given a choice and he ELECTED to have his own hiar cut and compete since he did not have the proper head gear rather than forfeit the match.
He WAS NOT coerced nor FORCED to get his hair cut.

“A wrestling official who required an African-American grappler from Buena Regional High School to cut his dreadlocks or forfeit his bout in a match against Oakcrest was acting in accordance with the rules, according to multiple South Jersey referees.
According to the National Federation of State High School Associations, wrestlers’ hair cannot extend past the earlobes. If it does, they must wear a legal hair cap to cover it.
Johnson was wearing a cap, but it wasn’t attached to the headgear as the rule requires, according to Buena graduate Ron Roberts, a wrestling referee of more than 20 years.
Johnson would’ve been in compliance in the past, but the rule changed within the past couple of seasons to require the cap to be attached to the headgear, according to Howie O’Neil, who’s officiated for 44 years.
“The interpretation of the rule was applied correctly,” said Roberts, who hadn’t seen the video, but had heard of the incident. “The kid had to have legal head cover by rule or he’s got to cut his hair.””

7 thoughts on “Reader says rather than write a story about perseverance and the competitive spirit we write a story to gin up racist hatred

  1. This is correct version …this referee decided to enforce the rules where previous officials did not….

    More Victimhood.

    Folks in the Red states don’t buy this kind of manipulation. This is why Trump is going to win again. BLM actually backfired on the loathsome liberal clan.

  2. You’re leaving out 2 facts:
    1) This ref has been sanctioned for racial slurs. In 2016 he called an opposing referee a racial slur and was sanctioned for it
    2) This same wrestler used the same headgear in a sanctioned county tournament, 11 days earlier, and was allowed to use the headgear

  3. You’re leaving out 2 facts.
    1) The ref WAS sanctioned. “Crime commited. Punishment applied.”
    However, the governing body deemed that this ref had “payed his debt to society” and would be allowed to continue as a qualified ref in good standing. The ref was never sanctioned over any action related to match play.
    2) The wrestler WAS allowed to use the same ILLEGAL headgear in a prior tournament.
    However, the ref in the prior tournament chose for whatever reason to NOT enforce the regulations.
    Just because one official chooses to NOT enforce the rules DOES NOT make it OK to continue to ignore regulations. Regulations which are in place for the safety and well being of both athletes in the match.
    Both of your points are irrelevant to the current situation.

  4. BOTH of Winfield’s comments are relevant
    With regard to point 1) All that was saidwas that he was sanctioned. You’re agreeing with that. Nothing was said about anything else other than he was sanctioned. This is relevant because that there could be a pattern of discrimination. NOTE All I’m I’m saying is that there COULD (not is, just could) be
    With regard to point 2) It is relevant because it shows that there is inconsistency about the enforcement of the rules. It doesn’t say anything about the ref, rather about the NJSIAA rules and their consistent enforcement (or lack thereof) of the rules

  5. The coach(es) should be aware of all rules before sending athletes onto the mat or field. If a player is not in compliance, it’s the responsibility of the PAID coach to make sure the athlete is prepared.

  6. Does it always have to be about race it drives me nuts. Rules are rules I blame the coaching staff for not making sure all of their wrestlers stay within the guidelines the media has been beating this to death I say enough

  7. A lot of “could be” “would be” “should be” being used to slander and convict a referee who has done nothing wrong in this situation so you can satisfy your racist beliefs that white people are racist towards black people.
    Lets stick to the facts:
    1) The sanctioned ref was cleared and allowed to continue refereeing in good standing – this is self eveident in that the ref WAS working the match.
    Also no mention of any restrictions in place on this ref was mentioned in any report of the incident (and beleive me if there were any conditions appplied to the refs standing they would have been mentioned).
    2) The fact that the ref DID follow the regulations AND the prior ref DID NOT follow the rules (exposing the failures of THE OTHER ref) has no bearing nor negative impact on THIS ref.
    All it does is point out that the prior ref was negligent in his duties at least one time. It may or may not indicate a larger problem with the NJSIAA. You seem to be quick to judge and condem a larger group (NJSIAA) for the sub-par performance of one member (the other ref who did not properly enforce the regulations). This is text book prejudice on your part.
    You are quick to imply racist tendencies on the ref who DID follow the rules.
    How about the ref that DID NOT follow the rules?
    Was he racist? Did he allow a black wrestler to compete while in violation of the regulations becasue he felt blacks cannot compete on a level playing field without additional help?
    Was he racist? Did he have bias towards a black wrestler and allow him to compete while in violation of the regulations because he has a hatred towards non-blacks?
    Of course making these “leaps of logic” would be wrong – but it is exactly what you are doing.
    THIS is the type of logic that YOU are employing by making this a racial issue and assigning bad intentions to the “white ref” who “forced a black teen” to cut his hair.
    The facts remain:
    1) A ref enforced the regulations
    2) An athlete made the decision to compete (by having his hair cut) and not forfeit the match.
    But don’t dispair, racial bias like yours will prevail. I’m highly confident that the ref will be banned or punished in some manner and the athlete and his family will get compensation of some sort.
    This will still not change the facts of the case and this outcome will still be wrong.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.