It really does not matter what he says or how he answers the accusation. If it is true that he called an African-American male a "boy" I do not need to hear his response. That term is very derogatory and coming from someone that lives in the south he more than likely knows how derogatory that comment is. Anyone trying to defend that is just putting their head in the sand or they are just as ignorant as the guy that made those comments.

Peace

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 <b>am</b> a racist.

Unbelievable....... :rolleyes:

[/B][/QUOTE]

Well, I meant my statement more in context of this incident including the fact that a heated squabble took place and it's in the press and the courts so my words are not 100% transferable to any situation. I also didn't claim to be Mr. Spock looking at this entirely with logic. The sentence mentioning my bias was there precisely to concede that point.

Kentucky is in the south? :confused:

Got news for you my friends: Racism isn't limited to the south or to white people.

Luckily, I haven't seen anyone here defending calling someone "boy" because that would be pretty ignorant. I was considering the possibility that he might deny he had ever said that in which case it would come down to a matter of his credibility.

. . . and I'm taking 57 total posts.

I will say 55 total posts. :D

Peace

Agreed. If it turns out that he called him "boy," there is no defense for that. If the allegations end up to be true, that official deserves whatever punishment they get. However, as idiotic and ignorant as that would be, the argument still should never have been carried onto the court and that is an easy automatic ejection from the tournament for both officials involved.

Z

If you are going to reiterate a point you made in post 29, you are going to have to call someone a name - otherwise you are just driving up the over-under on thread closure without effecting it. :D

I'm just kidding, of course. You make a good point but I think I will leave this one to officials as it speaks to your professionalism in a way that goes beyond my opinions.

Damn, now I just drove up the post count . . . can I change my number?

I see three accountability issues here:

(1) Bailey needed to be held accountable for his participation in a dispute that carried over into the public arena. He was.

(2) Montgomery needed to be held accountable for his participation in a dispute that carried over into the public arena. He was.

(3) Bailey needs to be held accountable for, if the allegations are true, his racist behavior toward an officiating colleague. That remains to be seen. I'd have no problem with (again, if the alleged facts are true in both words and connotation) a Kentucky High School Athletic Association decision to drop Bailey as an official. Drastic? Sure. But maybe we'd all be better off if some pretty clear lines were drawn....

My guess is that if the KHSAA will have to be accountable (this term might be too loaded - let's just say they will be asked to further justify) for their decision in court - it didn't sound like Mongomery was going to stop at injunction, but I could be wrong.

It sounds to me like the whole court case comes down to this point: Montgomery claims that he was provoked/enraged by a repeated racial taunt from the other official, and although he was part of the squabble out in public due to this mitigating circumstance he should not have been removed from his assignment the following night. He believes that is unfairly punishing him for reacting in an understandable manner.

The above is my conception of this whole mess.

I certainly agree with #s 1 and 2......and #3 also <b>if</b> the allegations are true. Any official that has shown racist behavior has no business being out on the court. That includes racists of <b>all</b> colors.

However, didn't you leave out the <b>other</b> alternative though?

(4) What if the allegations of Bailey's racist behavior <b>aren't</b> true? What if the allegations that Montgomery worked to get 2 of his fellow officials removed from a state play-off game <b>are</b> true?

Would Montgomery need to be held accountable now? And, if so, how?

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee (4) What if the allegations of Bailey's racist behavior <b>aren't</b> true? What if the allegations that Montgomery worked to get 2 of his fellow officials removed from a state play-off game <b>are</b> true? Would Montgomery need to be held accountable now? And, if so, how?

1.) The state association removed those ref's, not Montgomery. And I thought I read that they were reassigned to other games, but I may be wrong.

2.) What if Montgomery is the one who made the call? Does that give Bailey the right to confront Montgomery in the locker room during a game? What business is it of Bailey's?

Here's my opinion: OJ killed Nicole, Bailey called Montgomery a "boy".

[Edited by BadNewsRef on Mar 15th, 2006 at 09:33 AM]

Can't we all just get along?

A lot of great points were made through out this stitch -

But in the end didn't Montgomery make the ultimate mistake -
he became the issue not the game ?
Who won the game?

Montgomery had other recourse against the official and or the officials association.
His comment that his removal from the game was "Racist" was absurd - he was removed from the game for his actions on the court between halves - (the equivelent of conduct unbecoming of...). I believe specifically for yelling Obsenities at Bailey in the gym.

My understanding of the rule involving ejection of a player or coach from a game is that you have to sit out the next one -
While the ejection of an official is not specifically covered under the rule sitting out you next assignment is a fair enforcement of the situation.
In fact some would say the judgment against an official should be greater as they are held (rightly or wrongly) to a higher standard.

The other guy Bailey should recieve the same punnishment as Montgomery for the ejection - any other penalties for his behavior should be issued from the State association based on an investigation. I am sure there were other officials present in the locker room when this happened -
Sorry for jacking up the count I am going to say 85

From http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/...603130505/1031