A day or two ago a poster with 'dub' in his monikor double posted and I made a joking comment. Since then I have seen double posts at least a half dozen times.
A pretty dishonest take. He had to make this 'decision' with the pressure of not letting the team down. Putting undue pressure on someone doesn't make it their decision. It just means they were forced to then make the decision with a lot of pressure behind the decision. If he really WANTED to cut his hair as you say then there'd be no fuss about it. Maybe watch the video and see how upset he was about the whole thing.
Again, welcome to life. Hard decisions like that will continue to have to be made for the rest of his life. When it came down to it, he WANTED to cut his hair more than he WANTED to not compete that day. The example I gave of my friend's son being forced to cut his hair is a much worse situation because he truly had no choice, he was suspended from school until he cut his hair and if he just never went back, they'd count it as him being truant after a certain point. My friend's son was every bit as upset about it as this kid was, the difference is that he wasn't given a choice like this kid was. .
Using this logic... If I take a daughter hostage and point a gun to her head and say to her father..."Either give me your life's savings or I blow her head off..." and he gives me his life's savings then he WANTED to do it. Or all those situations where a kidnapped woman is raped against her will or sold into sexual slavery because it's either that or be killed. Using this logic they "WANT" to be sexual slaves. Saying that he WANTED to cut his hair implies he would have done it either way. Your friend's son didn't WANT to cut his hair. He NEEDED to go to school. To do what he needed to do he had to do something he didn't want to do. If this kid WANTED to cut his hair then there wouldn't have been any fuss here. He would have cut his hair in fact a week before when it was brought up to him...instead he tried to get a cover so that he could avoid cutting his hair.
That's in no way using any form of logic. I said that this kid WANTED to cut his hair more than he WANTED to not be allowed to compete....which is true. He didn't NEED to compete that day, he chose to. If you want to "use my logic" you'd say that my friend's kid WANTED to get his hair cut more than he WANTED to get ticketed for truancy. Now of course, I'd say that there is a massive difference in the desire to compete in a hobby and the desire to not end up in legal trouble, but at least in that situation you'd have been using some form of logic.
As someone who is a coach, referee and former competitor in sport similar to wrestling based on everything I've read so far I'm not going to fault the referee. The only mistake I can see was that he was late to the meet and should've been informed that Johnson was being allowed to compete with that particular headgear, as an exception to the rule. With sports like wrestling things like long hair and head covering matter to the performance of the sport. When you're grabbing and locking around the head those things can greatly affect the grip of and be benefit, or a hindrance, to you or your opponent. That is why it's critical to address those in a way that is fair to all concerned. The next point is that rules are rules and while we may not agree with all of the rules to ensure fair play it is a requirement that we follow those rules. I know in my sport there are many rules that I don't agree with and think are detrimental to the longterm growth of the sport but as a referee I enforce them and as a coach I tell my players to follow them. A few years back there was a big rule change that I greatly disliked and spoke out to both our local and national organizations against. Still at the first tournament that I refereed after that rule change I was the first ref in my state to enforce that rule and disqualify a player for it. Even though coaches, spectators and even some of the other refs disagreed with my ruling. I don't know about wrestling but in Judo there is some leeway for the tournament director and head ref to make regarding the rules. It sounds like initially an exception was made for Johnson and he was allowed to compete in earlier matches. It sounds like Maloney wasn't aware of this because he was late. He does deserve some blame in that but it then should've been up to the other refs, particularly the head ref to have stepped in and informed him. Johnson's coach should've asked for a review from the head ref and or tournament or league director. Those are the prerogatives of others though. From everything I've seen Mahoney was acting within the rules for the sport and his role as referee for that match. As a coach I've been in this situation a few times. The most recently my best competitor wears a bar in her ear which is against Judo regulations. We've had to go so far as to have medical personal take that bar out disinfect and tape up her ear before she competes and then put it back in after the tournament even though she's risking infection every time she does so. It's not something I force her to do but I do make it clear that it's either that or we forfeit the match. This situation isn't unusual as there are all sorts of sacrifices and things that other players do regarding personal appearance and what it takes to compete within the rules. Finally I understand why this issue is getting so much attention, as per my situation of a white player making a cosmetic choice. Unfortunately in our society there is always a racial subtext and there very well might be one here. Just from reading the facts as I've seen them I'm very hesitant to draw the conclusion that ref Maloney or the wrestling rules are racist. Everything I've read appears to support that Maloney acted properly and I can fully understand why wrestling would have such rules in the first place. Without knowing more I would say that Maloney should be reinstated as referee.
Also I'm passing on the vote. I think Maloney acted properly and was right to say that Johnson shouldn't have been allowed to compete with either the improper head gear or hair not in compliance. if Johnson had been granted an exception by tournament officials then that should've overruled Maloney's decision on allowing Johnson to compete or not. That to me though doesn't make Maloney wrong to rule initially as he did.
In no way did this kid want to cut his hair he chose to still compete rather than let this clown of a ref win in the end.
Again, he wanted to cut his hair more than he wanted to not be allowed to wrestle. How is that sentence so hard to understand?
Yes, and in my scenario, the father wanted to keep his daughter alive more than he wanted to keep his life savings. Making a decision over gunpoint... "Forfeit the match or cut your hair right now! Oh, and there is your team over there cheering you on." Yes, a hobby he's clearly passionate about. Again, a point you continue to ignore. If he wanted to cut his hair he wouldn't have been so distraught about it and he wouldn't have made a big deal about it. He did not WANT to cut his hair. That's just a fact. If he wanted to cut his hair he would have cut it before the competition instead of trying to get a hair cover to AVOID cutting it.
Exactly. There really is no way to twist this into saying he WANTED to cut his hair. He felt like he had to cut his hair and if you see the video his teammates are over there trying to encourage him to get through it for the team. He likely felt he had to do so.
I hope you understand how foolish that comparison is and you don't need me to spell it out for you. If he wanted to keep his hair, he would have forfeited. Noting forced him to do it, he could have simply let with his hair and competed in a different event where he was following the rules. Instead, he decided he wanted to cut his hair more than he wanted to forfeit the match....and no, it's not the same as a decision made at gunpoint, don't be ridiculous. The kid's hair will grow back, just like my friend's son's hair did, and he now for sure knows the rules so if he wants to keep wrestling he won't violate those rules again most likely. If you want to be mad at anyone about it, be mad at the coach for not knowing the rules and for suggesting the kid cut his hair to begin with.
Yes, he was told if he didn't cut his hair he'd forfeit the match. He didn't want to forfeit his match. He didn't want to cut his hair. If he wanted to cut his hair this wouldn't even be a story. Do you know what "WANT" means? It seems you actually don't know what the word means. It means to desire something. Answer honestly, did he DESIRE to have his hair cut? If he WANTED to cut his hair he'd have cut it long ago... Saying that he WANTED to cut his hair more than X doesn't prove anything. If your driving license is suspended and you have to take driving classes to get it reinstated, you may not WANT to take the classes...but you WANT to drive again so you feel you NEED to take the classes. To say "Well, he wanted to take the classes more than he wanted to not drive again..." that's just not how language works, it's you trying to twist it into something it isn't. If the kid wanted to cut his hair he would have cut it a week before, hell, the hairstyle wouldn't have even existed.
Yes, he was told that because he was in violation of the rules. He should have just had to forfeit the match, but the coach wanted to find a way for him to be able to still compete so the coach suggested the haircut and the ref allowed it. The kid then got to decide which direction he wanted to go....and he chose to have his hair cut. The kid wasn't oppressed, and the faux outrage is absolutely ridiculous. I'm honestly not sure why you are hell bent on stripping this kid of his agency simply so that you can push the narrative that he is some kind of victim but doing so robs him of his dignity. The kid made a choice, just because it wasn't a choice he was happy to have to make doesn't change anything. People are faced with choices similar to that every day, it's part of life.
Not hard to understand at all what you seem to not be understanding is he NEVER should have been put in that position the now banned official was wrong from the start he never should have even brought up anything about his hair he had been competing with the same hair length and no other ref had a issue with it.
Wow you have taken a new low if you think people will believe that it is foolish that this kid was happy to have to cut his hair For you to believe that if he wanted to keep his hair he would have not cut it is just flat out crazy what the hell put the eggnog do man this never should have been a issue but a so called ref that has had issue with deal with some wrestlers of color before it's not a good look for him that's why he is now banned.
Question is was the head cover he had correct or not. That seems to be uncertain. If it was proper, then there's an issue. If it wasn't then it would appear this is unfair to the ref. That said, he was also late, and tardiness is a legitimate reason for dismissal
So if your Boss comes up to you and goes "Hey, I really would suggest you do this overtime this week..." you really think that isn't ANY pressure at all on you, the worker? That if you don't accept you may face some kind of consequence? You don't ever believe there are situations where people are virtually forced to do something because they fear the consequence of not doing that thing? Stripping him of his agency? Again, you need to apply the actual definition of "WANT" here. Did he desire, truly, to have his hair cut? People are faced with choices, this is true, but that doesn't mean they WANT to do those things. Again, refer to any of the examples I've given you. If your license is suspended you do not WANT to take driving classes again...but in order to drive again you NEED to. To frame it as "He wants to drive again more than he wants to take the classes..." is wrong, because he doesn't WANT to take the classes at all. He NEEDS to take the classes. In order for this kid to compete, he NEEDED to cut his hair and he needed to make this decision in 90 seconds...and as you say...his coach suggested he cut his hair and in the video you can see his peers trying to encourage him through it (and I'm not blaming them, they are just trying to be supportive). After he wins the match he's crying. After this whole thing, his family and he are pissed about it. To read this entire story and come out with the conclusion of... "Obviously he wanted to cut his hair..." it's like you took the most contrarian point possible. Like, out of all the takes to take from this one... Say the ref was just trying to enforce the rules or this happens in this particular sport or whatever...but this? You really dig hard for these hot takes. I'm not pushing a narrative, the kid was a victim, it looks like the only person that doesn't think he wasn't a victim here is you. It seems both liberal and conservative posters here think he was a victim and that all this could have been avoided.
