KY Referee Squabble - Outta Control

[BayStateRef]

UPDATE
Judge says 7th Region game can be played

The Courier-Journal

A Kentucky Court of Appeals judge has ruled that the Seventh Region boys’ high school basketball championship game between Jeffersontown and Ballard can be played on Monday night without referee Vic Montgomery.

After a brief hearing Monday afternoon, Judge William E. McAnulty Jr. found that an injunction postponing Saturday’s championship game was improperly issued.

Attorneys for Montgomery asked the Kentucky Supreme Court to hear an appeal of that decision, but the high court refused.

Montgomery had been ejected from another game Friday night after an altercation with another game official, and the Kentucky High School Athletic Association removed him then from officiating the final.

During halftime of the DeSales-Western game on Friday, Montgomery, who was working the game, and Darrell Bailey, who was scheduled to work the evening’s final game, got involved in an argument that started in the officials’ locker room and carried into the arena.

Both were escorted from the building. Montgomery was replaced for the second half of the DeSales-Western game, and Bailey was replaced in the Doss-Pleasure Ridge Park game.

Montgomery said the issue was a rumor that he had a hand in getting two other officials removed from the Jeffersontown-Male semifinal. Darin Stanfield and Alfred Smith, both Male graduates, were taken off that game after Jeffersontown protested.

The winner of the regional final is to advance to the state tournament this week in Lexington. The Seventh Region champion is scheduled to play 15th Region champion Johnson Central at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday.

[BayStateRef]

Interesting insights. And it seems that race did play a large role.

State Supreme Court rules against referee

By Andrew Wolfson
[email protected]
The Courier-Journal

The game must go on, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled yesterday, refusing to order the reinstatement of referee Vic Montgomery to officiate the Seventh Region boys' basketball final between Jeffersontown and Ballard.

The Kentucky High School Athletic Association had postponed the game Saturday after Montgomery, 36, won a temporary injunction from a Jefferson Circuit Court judge blocking a local decision to bar him from calling the game.

But Court of Appeals Judge William E. McAnulty Jr. yesterday held that Circuit Judge Steve Ryan improperly granted the motion without a hearing or notice to the KHSAA's lawyers.

In an order issued two hours before the rescheduled game tipped off last night, McAnulty said Montgomery's loss of his chance to "demonstrate his skill on a significant stage" was outweighed by the "KHSAA's responsibility to manage the emotional events of a high school tournament for the benefit of the public at large, the schools that make up the KHSAA and, most importantly, the students participating."

Montgomery appealed to the Supreme Court, but it also ruled against him.

The controversy could have threatened the Sweet 16, which will begin tomorrow at Rupp Arena in Lexington.

Defending the association's right to stage the game without Montgomery, its lawyer, Phillip Scott of Lexington, said during a hearing before McAnulty, "We don't want it to be the Sweet 15."

Montgomery's lawyer, Thomas Clay, told the court the referee was only trying to defend his reputation after being unfairly deprived of his chance to call the championship game.

"This is about a man's reputation," Clay said. "It is about more than the $55 he would be paid to work the game."

Montgomery was removed from officiating the DeSales-Western tournament game at halftime Friday night -- and told he wouldn't be allowed to work Saturday's final -- after an altercation between him and another official, Darrell Bailey.

Montgomery, who is black, said yesterday that Bailey, who is white, called him "boy" at least seven times during the dispute. Montgomery said Bailey mistakenly thought he was responsible for two officials who graduated from Male High School being removed from an earlier game between Male and Jeffersontown.

Montgomery said a Jeffersontown official had called to get the Male alumni removed.

Bailey could not be reached for comment

Montgomery, who is an assistant principal at Scott Middle School in Fort Knox and has officiated games since 1994, said, "I know how to show restraint, but I am a man, too. If you call me boy, you might as well call me nigger."

Montgomery admitted he "got emotional" when Jerry Wyman, the director of athletics and activities for the Jefferson County Public Schools, told him he wouldn't work Saturday night. He said he deserved to work that game based on evaluations from high school coaches.

In an interview, Scott, the KHSAA's attorney, said that even if racial taunting precipitated the argument, it did not excuse Montgomery's conduct, which spilled into public view while he was in his official's uniform.

"If you are in a striped shirt, that is not the kind of leadership we expect in high school sports," Scott said. "Officials set the examples for others to follow."

He said a student-athlete would have been suspended for a similar outburst.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BayStateRef
And it seems that race did play a large role.

Bailey could not be reached for comment

How do you know that after only hearing one side?

[tomegun]

Something doesn't seem right. If someone offends me that much, I wouldn't be on my way back out on the court. Since he is an educated man (meaning he is somewhat smar at least), he might have filed suit because he sees the handwriting on the wall and knows this could have been his last chance.
This might be a case of the truth being somewhere in the middle of both sides.

[bebanovich]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

How do you know that after only hearing one side?

Agreed. But one side seems to be choosing not to be heard against a very concrete allegation. If there is a plausible reason why no one can currently contact him, I'm sure that will come out. If Bailey goes another day without, at least, releasing a comment through an attorney I will make up my mind without him.

He has no obligation to answer to me or anyone else in the public but that's what public opinion is all about. Refuse to answer questions and lose credibilty. I have my ideas about what I would do if a Black man accused me of calling him "boy" at least 7 times and I can compare his actions with what I imagine mine would be.

If Bailey comes forward with a reasonable story, it is actually harder for me, as an outsider, to form an opinion with the available evidence. Right now it's getting easier by the minute.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by bebanovich
Refuse to answer questions and lose credibilty.

I don't think he cares about public opinion. I'm sure his lawyer has reminded him that if he doesn't make any public statement, then his opponent won't have any quotes to use against him in court.

[bebanovich]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

I don't think he cares about public opinion. I'm sure his lawyer has reminded him that if he doesn't make any public statement, then his opponent won't have any quotes to use against him in court.

But usually that's when the attorney releases the "baseless and hurtful allegations" statement.

[Raymond]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

How do you know that after only hearing one side?

For me, I have no reason to doubt the veracity of Montgomery's claims that Bailey called him "boy" 7 times. For a state tournament official to lose his cool at halftime bad enough that it spills outside the locker room, something "over-the-line" must have been said. And calling a Black man, or for that matter any grown man, "boy" would qualify as over-the-line. And since Bailey had no business in the locker room in the first place he starts out on the negative side my ledger. Me personally, I wouldn't have let it spill outside the locker room, because somewhere between the 3rd and 4th utterance of "Boy", Bailey would have been saying "Boy, quit choking me!!!".

Now, Montgomery's claims that he was pulled from the game for racial reasons is a whole nother story. That's a subjective view on his part, which so far has not been backed up publicly with facts or evidence.

[Edited by BadNewsRef on Mar 14th, 2006 at 03:17 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BadNewsRef
[/B]

And calling a Black man, or for that matter and grown man, "boy" would qualify as over-the-line.

[/B][/QUOTE]Again.....how do you know that someone called someone else "boy"?

You have an unsubstantiated statement by one of the parties. You have no statement by the other party.

None of us knows what happened. Everyone here is speculating. Personally, I'll give both parties the benefit of the doubt until something concrete has been issued. It's not fair to either party to do otherwise imo.

[bebanovich]

Originally posted by BadNewsRef

Now, Montgomery's claims that he was pulled from the game for racial reasons is a whole nother story. That's a subjective view on his part, which so far has not been backed up publicly with facts or evidence.

But this incident does not represent his subjective view any more or less than any other similar (and by that I don't mean racial) legal dispute. The fact that it tugged at peoples' emotions and upset high school students, staff and fans for a few days is neither here nor there in my book. He is using available legal channels and will now have to demonstrate the merits of his case as his opponent will have to defend theirs. It may not work out totally fairly, but it's what we've got.

Not that you were, BadNewsRef, but I don't know why people get so upset when individuals exercise their legal rights. If the court made a mistake in granting the injuction (which it appears maybe they did) then isn't that on the court?

Just yesterday I was given a reminder about the legal system and race when our new principal - an African-American man - was telling a few members of the staff about how he had just been pulled over by the local police. They didn't give him a reason for the stop and asked him to get out of his car. He removed his watch, his wedding ring and some other jewelry and put it in his glove compartment. Then he said, "if you are arresting me, I will cooperate but otherwise, no, I will not get out of my car." They asked him again and he said, "no." They asked him about the paycheck on the passenger seat of his car and he said it was from his employer. They asked him why his license was from 600 miles away and he said he had just moved up here to take this new job. He asked what he was being stopped for and if he was being arrested and eventually they let him go without telling him why they had stopped him. I think it's tempting for people to ask what the hell he was thinking and why he didn't just get out of the car but it never really crossed his mind as an option.

I'm not including this example because I think it's parallel to the Montgomery situation - I don't know the whole story there. I just think that it's a tricky thing to sit in judgement of when people choose to invoke their legal rights and what meaning the weight of history carries in that decision. Again, this is not meant as a tirade against your post, BadNewsRef, but just an acknowledgment that we are just looking at someone who decided to invoke his legal rights who is going to have to go through the same burden of proof and suffer the consequences of public opinion.

Now that the injunction is history, it's going to be interesting to see if this gets any sunlight as it progresses or if it just disappears. I don't know what the next steps will be but I can't imagine the injunction was the end of the story.

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by bebanovich

If Bailey comes forward with a reasonable story, it is actually harder for me, as an outsider, to form an opinion with the available evidence. Right now it's getting easier by the minute.

I'm not really sure what opinion you are trying to form, and why Bailey coming forward or not makes that opinion any easier. Like I said before, both of these guys behaved badly and got what they deserved...what opinion do you need to form?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by tomegun
This might be a case of the truth being somewhere in the middle of both sides.

Isn't that where it usually lies?

[tomegun]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Isn't that where it usually lies?

Not always, but sometimes yep!

[bebanovich]

Originally posted by rockyroad

I'm not really sure what opinion you are trying to form, and why Bailey coming forward or not makes that opinion any easier. Like I said before, both of these guys behaved badly and got what they deserved...what opinion do you need to form?

I'm not trying to form any opinion, but if someone accuses me of racism without cause, I answer it. Bailey doesn't, I start to believe he probably was being racist. That's just how my bias works.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by bebanovich
[/B]

I'm not trying to form any opinion, but if someone accuses me of racism without cause, I answer it. Bailey doesn't, I start to believe he probably was being racist. That's just how my bias works. [/B][/QUOTE]Great logic.

Somebody calls me a racist. I think that a statement like that isn't worthy of any response. And, to you, that means that I am a racist.

Unbelievable.......