KY Referee Squabble - Outta Control

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I have never voiced an opinion either way concerning Mr. Montgomery's removal from the game. My bone of contention in this thread has been that a lot of people question Mr. Montgomery's version of events without any basis to doubt his word. I have seen no newspaper articles, interviews, testimonials in support of Mr. Bailey, responses/statements from Mr. Bailey, nor press releases from the KHSAA, that would put into question Mr. Montgomery's accounting of the events surrounding his suspension.

I, for one, do not question anything in Mr. Montgomery's account of what happened. I do, however, question his actions that led up to the dispute spilling over into the public eye. He was involved in that, and that's why he received the consequences that were handed down. I also don't buy all the hooey in his post stating that he didn't put himself above the game or the kids involved - that's crap. All he had to do was let the KHSAA (or whatever it is) know that he felt it was wrong to take him off the game, and then follow logical legal recourses AFTER the game was played...

And all this talk about "manhood" is ridiculous...sounds like the 12 and 13 year-olds I have to deal with in class - "He dissed me, so I had to do something".

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I, for one, do not question anything in Mr. Montgomery's account of what happened. I do, however, question his actions that led up to the dispute spilling over into the public eye. He was involved in that, and that's why he received the consequences that were handed down. I also don't buy all the hooey in his post stating that he didn't put himself above the game or the kids involved - that's crap. All he had to do was let the KHSAA (or whatever it is) know that he felt it was wrong to take him off the game, and then follow logical legal recourses AFTER the game was played...

And all this talk about "manhood" is ridiculous...sounds like the 12 and 13 year-olds I have to deal with in class - "He dissed me, so I had to do something".

Rocky,
I don't disagree with what you say. I wasn't there, so I don't know what happened. But sometimes they are situations in life where your manhood is at stake. Personally, if it was me, and Mr. Bailey did what Mr. Montgomery said he did, it would have got physical in the locker room, and I would have had to deal with the repercussions that followed.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I have never voiced an opinion either way concerning Mr. Montgomery's removal from the game. My bone of contention in this thread has been that a lot of people question Mr. Montgomery's version of events without any basis to doubt his word. I have seen no newspaper articles, interviews, testimonials in support of Mr. Bailey, responses/statements from Mr. Bailey, nor press releases from the KHSAA, that would put into question Mr. Montgomery's accounting of the events surrounding his suspension.

My bone of contention in this thread is that people believe Mr. Montgomery's version of the events without having any real basis to do so. It's not a matter of doubting Mr. Montgomery's word; it's a matter of not having any solid information available to us that would prove that his version was correct. We have not heard his adversary's version, which no doubt will be completely different. We have not heard from any (supposedly)neutral observers such as Mr. Montgomery's partners who must have been in the dressing room, or the tournament director(s) who saw the altercation spill out into public view. We are not privy to the court rulings and the reasonings involved that denied Mr. Montgomery's appeal. Until we have heard all of the details, I don't think that there is nearly enough information available to decide what version is correct. Iow, I think that both parties should get the benefit of the doubt as to what happened in the dressing room. To do otherwise without definitive information as to what actually took place is just not fair to either party imo.

I also think that neither party should get the benefit of the doubt for then taking their dispute public. They were both wrong to do so.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Rocky,
I don't disagree with what you say. I wasn't there, so I don't know what happened. But sometimes they are situations in life where your manhood is at stake. Personally, if it was me, and Mr. Bailey did what Mr. Montgomery said he did, it would have got physical in the locker room, and I would have had to deal with the repercussions that followed.

Situations where my manhood is at stake would be situations where the lives/safety of my wife and kids are being threatened. Having someone call you names in a locker room does NOT threaten anyone's manhood...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Situations where my manhood is at stake would be situations where the lives/safety of my wife and kids are being threatened. Having someone call you names in a locker room does NOT threaten anyone's manhood...

Face-to-face racial taunting exceeds the level of basic name-calling in my book. But everyone is different. Everyone has their own life experiences that help mold the decisions they make. And what some people see as trivial might mean the world to someone else. And we all have to decide for ourselves which battles we choose to fight and which ones to walk away from.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

My bone of contention in this thread is that people believe Mr. Montgomery's version of the events without having any real basis to do so. It's not a matter of doubting Mr. Montgomery's word; it's a matter of not having any solid information available to us that would prove that his version was correct. We have not heard his adversary's version, which no doubt will be completely different. We have not heard from any (supposedly)neutral observers such as Mr. Montgomery's partners who must have been in the dressing room, or the tournament director(s) who saw the altercation spill out into public view.

We are not privy to the court rulings and the reasonings involved that denied Mr. Montgomery's appeal. Until we have heard all of the details, I don't think that there is nearly enough information available to decide what version is correct. Iow, I think that both parties should get the benefit of the doubt as to what happened in the dressing room. To do otherwise without definitive information as to what actually took place is just not fair to either party imo.

Now we need evidence to draw a conclusion? I have heard nothing but conclusions from the time this story was posted on this thread of what Victor did wrong and why was he involving himself in holding up the game. All that rhetoric sounds like a conclusion to me.

I can speak as an African-American and my experiences. I feel that what Mr. Montgomery's story is believable and understandable from what his actions were. Now it is very easy for a bunch of people that have not walked in those kinds of shoes to go around making clear judgments about what should have been the reaction. I do not need to hear all the sides just like those who where not there need to hear all the sides of the story. Just because we hear all sides is not going to change anything. What this story tells me is Baily probably does not have a leg to stand on and that is why you probably do not hear him talking at all about what he did. Now that is just my opinion, but that is all we are talking about here. No one was there, no one that I am aware of even saw the incident or know what happen. It is also a reality that the KHSAA is not going to come out and give all the details to this story either. We will never know all the sides. We will only know what both of the officials say about it and I am sure both sides of this story will be a little different. I totally believe Mr. Montgomery's story just like I believe a lot of stories from victims of racism because similar things happen a lot in this country. I do not expect people that are not African-American to believe this story until you see video tape like a Rodney King situation. People of color always seemed to have to prove something took place to them as it relates to racial issues and the benefit of the doubt is given to those that are accused. Change this situation to a rape case and flip the races of the people and it the victim is totally believed on many levels. This situation is just another example that we have a long way to go in this country's racial issues. I have read nothing in this thread but speculation and judgment and now you JR want to tell everyone how to feel is just not your place. I think anyone can come to a conclusion just like you have and we do not need all the evidence that you want to come to that conclusion.

Peace

[smoref]

I believe the account the Mr. Montgomery gave. I also think that when he walked away from Mr. Bailey initially and Mr. Bailey said per Mr. Montgomery "That's right walk away boy", he should have just kept walking and reported the actions to a gym manager to have Mr. Bailey removed from the gym. He gained nothing by going back and that is exactly what Bailey wanted.

I also think that the KY Assoc needs to do a full investigation into the actions of Bailey and if everything or even most of the things that Mr. Montgomery said are true then Bailey should not be allowed to referee in that state again as he has proven that he has some sort of racism in his heart and that should not be tolerated in any way.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

1) We will never know all the sides.

2) I totally believe Mr. Montgomery's story just like I believe a lot of stories from victims of racism because similar things happen a lot in this country.

3) People of color always seemed to have to prove something took place to them as it relates to racial issues and the benefit of the doubt is given to those that are accused.

4) I have read nothing in this thread but speculation and judgment and now you JR want to tell everyone how to feel is just not your place. I think anyone can come to a conclusion just like you have and we do not need all the evidence that you want to come to that conclusion.

Well, I hate to reply as I'm breaking my own vow, but note that it's my last one to you. As usual, it's a complete waste of time to try and debate anything with you.....but here goes...

1) That's exactly what I've been saying. We do NOT know both sides.

2) Despite not knowing both sides, you believe that the black guy is right and the white guy is wrong. Why aren't I surprised?

3) Are you saying that the premise should be "guilty until proven innocent" instead? Doess that apply to all sides equally? Or just to one side?

4) As usual, you have a comprehension problem. I'm NOT telling anyone how to feel at all. I defy you to find one instance in this thread where I came to any conclusion at all as to what happened in the dressing room. You're the one who's doing that by taking sides when there's absolutely no evidence to support either party. I'm saying that there's no evidence on hand to come to any conclusion as to what happened in the dressing room.

Might as well close this one now. It just went the way of all similar threads. I'm just surprised that it took this long.

[biz]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Situations where my manhood is at stake would be situations where the lives/safety of my wife and kids are being threatened. Having someone call you names in a locker room does NOT threaten anyone's manhood...

In situations where my manhood is at stake I wear a cup

[Raymond]

JR

from BadNewRef:As for the KY situation, I did give the benefit of the doubt to an official, the one named Montgomery. As I said previously, Bailey starts out in the negative side of the ledger for being in the locker room when he should not have been.

response from JR:

Yup...indeed....

I know exactly what you're saying.

2) Despite not knowing both sides, you believe that the black guy is right and the white guy is wrong. Why aren't I surprised?

These 2 responses sound somewhat similar. First one is a response from you to me in another thread, I tried not to draw any conclusions but your response to JRutledge speaks volumes.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Well, I hate to reply as I'm breaking my own vow, but note that it's my last one to you. As usual, it's a complete waste of time to try and debate anything with you.....but here goes...

I love the self-righteousness that you always try to display on this site. You seemed to think that what you think is the only factor that matters.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) That's exactly what I've been saying. We do NOT know both sides.

You have already passed judgment and you were not there. To say that you think based on what you read is the same thing as what you are accusing others of doing.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

2) Despite not knowing both sides, you believe that the black guy is right and the white guy is wrong. Why aren't I surprised?

Just as usual you try to oversimplify the issue. Kentucky has a history of racism in officiating to the point the State Supreme Court had to mandate a racial balance in officiating assignments for every State Tournament. I did not just make that up, I heard that directly out of the mouth of Larry Boucher at an Official's Convention he spoke at in Illinois. Now I do not know about you, but that is a pretty big history to over come. I do not need someone to tell me that someone was racially profiled in a traffic stop to believe that it likely took place.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

3) Are you saying that the premise should be "guilty until proven innocent" instead? Doess that apply to all sides equally? Or just to one side?

Innocent until proved guilty? You have got to be kidding me. If that is the case OJ was proven innocent in a criminal proceeding which was the first case he had to deal with. So if we are using the "legal" standard then no one has the right to say he killed his wife and her friend. Remember this is not a court of law we are talking about. This is a situation where we are reading a story and based on our own personal experiences we make a judgment. For me being Black and having faced similar situations (outside of officiating) I have to believe it is more likely that what Montgomery said took place. Now if that does not fit your "high" standards that is just too bad. You are not Black and you will never be Black. You have not experienced the many things I have over my life and you have not lived in the shoes of my family members. Remember we have schools in the south that still exist because certain people of color were not allowed to attend the mostly white schools and now you want to tell me that history means nothing because you say so. Whatever you say man.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

4) As usual, you have a comprehension problem. I'm NOT telling anyone how to feel at all. I defy you to find one instance in this thread where I came to any conclusion at all as to what happened in the dressing room. You're the one who's doing that by taking sides when there's absolutely no evidence to support either party. I'm saying that there's no evidence on hand to come to any conclusion as to what happened in the dressing room.

I have a right to take sides on this or any issue. You do it every other post when someone comes here and tells us about what an official did or did not do when they person making the claim is a coach or fan. This is the same type of issue. If you do not like my point of view, then you will just have to get over it. I commented on what I feel I should have and I have made it clear why I feel that way. And yes, the fact me being Black affects how I view this situation or any other situation that goes on in the world. This is not different than your point of view when you are pointing out what you feel based on your officiating background.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Might as well close this one now. It just went the way of all similar threads. I'm just surprised that it took this long.

No, this should stay open. This conversation is not about us. I gave my point of view and I stand by that point of view. I know discussing racial issues makes you uncomfortable and maybe it should when you think the world is about your point of view only.

Now go back to claiming you do not read my posts (as if it matters to anyone but you) and trying to tell everyone how wrong they are for having a position on this issue not much different than your point of view. At least from the standpoint is none of us have the entire story and never will. Even if Bailey decides to come to this site and give a point of view, it will be "his" point of view. I know my point of view is based on what is likely, not what happen for sure. I am comfortable with that and either way I do not have a dog in that fight either way it goes. The story is just that to me, a story. I do not have to live with what happen or this did not happen in my state where the ramifications have far reaching concerns.

Peace

[Rich]

Personally, I think that the tournament manager overstepped his bounds by replacing an official in the middle of a contest. Of course the Kentucky state office is going to back that decision up, though -- what else could it do?

I'm probably the only one that feels that way, but my question is this -- why the HELL is another person, official or not, even getting near the game officials' locker room during a contest? Then once the second guy got in the locker room and something was started, why didn't game management get rid of the guy so the assigned official could finish the game?

We aren't going to ever know the entire story. But I'm not going to be quick to blast the guy that got replaced.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Personally, I think that the tournament manager overstepped his bounds by replacing an official in the middle of a contest. Of course the Kentucky state office is going to back that decision up, though -- what else could it do?

I'm probably the only one that feels that way, but my question is this -- why the HELL is another person, official or not, even getting near the game officials' locker room during a contest? Then once the second guy got in the locker room and something was started, why didn't game management get rid of the guy so the assigned official could finish the game?

We aren't going to ever know the entire story. But I'm not going to be quick to blast the guy that got replaced.

I made that point back on one of the first pages - why was the guy in the locker room, why didn't the partners step in and stop it all. etc...I really don't think anyone has defended the idiot that went in there and started the argument. But it takes two to argue and take it into the public view...and then to come on here (or anywhere) and tell people it was a "manhood" thing is just self-serving drivel...they both acted the fool and they both paid for it. Will there be more consequences later - probably, especially for the Bailey guy.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Personally, I think that the tournament manager overstepped his bounds by replacing an official in the middle of a contest. Of course the Kentucky state office is going to back that decision up, though -- what else could it do?

I'm probably the only one that feels that way, but my question is this -- why the HELL is another person, official or not, even getting near the game officials' locker room during a contest? Then once the second guy got in the locker room and something was started, why didn't game management get rid of the guy so the assigned official could finish the game?

We aren't going to ever know the entire story. But I'm not going to be quick to blast the guy that got replaced.

Actually you are not the only one Rich that feels that way. I also feel that way. I just want to know why Bailey was allowed by others to behave in this manner and not help Montgomery out (or any official on that situation) from having to deal with some guy that was not working the game or allowed in the locker room in this situation. If Montgomery over-rated to the situation, someone should have gotten Bailey out of the situation. I am not at all surprised that it came public if no one comes in between the two individuals and got rid of the guy that had no right to be there. If this was a fan would have anyone sat around and just allowed some guy to run their mouth to an official on a game that is in progress? I do not think so, so why is an official that is not even working the game given a free reign on this topic? I know when I am not working games and I go into the locker room to talk to friends, that is their sanctuary, it is not my place to step all over the officials just because I am an official.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

I'm probably the only one that feels that way, but my question is this -- why the HELL is another person, official or not, even getting near the game officials' locker room during a contest?

That's my problem with this whole situation. Bailey had no business in the locker room at halftime of this game, especially a game of this magnitude. So Bailey starts out with "no benefit of the doubt". I'm going to lean towards Montgomery version of events until I hear or read something different. That's not saying I absolve Montgomery from any wrong-doing in this situation, but it means because Bailey's actions were wrong in the first place I give the benefit of the doubt concerning their particular dispute to Montgomery.

IMO, once Montgomery left the locker room he should have put Bailey and the argument behind him and dealt with it later. Say maybe, at halftime of Bailey's game?? But based upon the rules of the tournament venue and/or the KHSAA Montgomery actions may have warranted his removal from the game, I can't speak to that. I can only speak to whether or not I find Montgomery's version of events believeable and credible on its face. And based upon MY life's experiences and those of others I explicitly trust, I find Montogomery story plausible until otherwise contradicted. But that is just an opinion, it doesn't make me right or wrong.