WOW!!!!!
Not knowing any of the facts, I'm not going to make any judgments.
I will only say that this guy certainly believes that he was wronged and that he has convinced a judge that his case at least has enough merit to grant a temporary injunction while the situation is considered.

It is definitely different.

Even if he wins, working that game is gonna be tough. Or any other game from now on. It will end up being a defining moment in his career and unfortunately (whether he is right or wrong) I don't think it can end up as a positive.

Not knowing everything, maybe he has a valid complaint but I don't think this is the way to handle it and this can't be good for his officiating career. Maybe he lives close to the state line and can get a recripocal to work over there. ??

What's with the jeans to a State finals game? yeesh

It takes two to fight. Either one of those officials could have just walked away from the argument and it wouldn't have spilled onto the court. Then the racial card gets played. Sounds like a guy who forgot that the game is about the kids.

Z

I guess when people feel they are wronged they are never to bring up the reasons why they feel that way in your mind?

I do not agree with going to court but once again, if someone feels have been slighted, if they feel it is because of the color of their hair, they are every right to point that out. I also agree that this situation is going to hurt his career in the future. He will always be known as "that official" for the rest of his career. Unless he moves completely away from Kentucky that is a massive cross he will have to bear.

Peace

What a horribly-written article. I almost feel like I somehow know less than I did before I read it.

I agree that, from this one article, there doesn't really seem to be a racial element as the official claims. (That doesn't mean there isn't one; it just means it wasn't brought out in the article.) And I agree that the game is about the kids.

However, the assignment is very much about the officials. Being assigned to the post-season is very much a badge of honor to an official, and the further you go into the post-season, the bigger the badge is. If you're assigned to a game, and then removed for no good reason, that's wrong.

I can't say if the official's "altercation" was a good reason or not. But I can say that I would be very very upset to be removed from my next game on Tuesday night. I don't know if I would go to court over it, but it would definitely not be about the kids. That's about me and what I earned (hopefully) on merit this season.

Chuck brings up a good point...

We don't have enough information to dispute the race card thing. And what the hell was that other guy doing, going into the locker room at halftime of a huge game, just to pick a fight? Other questions:

1) Why did game admin. see fit to remove one of the working game officials? Why not just remove the troublemakers? Short of pulling a weapon, I can't see why the BOTH of them were kicked out of the building altogether.

2) Where were this guy's partners, or other officials who were undoubtedly at the game?

3) There must have been evaluators, assignors, etc there to watch the game. What were they doing?

So let me get this straight....someone comes into the room at halftime of a big game I'm working, stirs up trouble, and I get penalized for it. HUH? This guy is good enough that he was awarded some pretty big games. Seems to me his colleagues had a chance to give him the benefit of the doubt - and chose to hang him out to dry instead.

If the same thing happened my association's city playoffs, with one of our top officials, I'm thinking that evening ends a bit differently.

In the end, it seems very wrong to penalize EVERYBODY - especially the kids - for a dispute with your officials association. Save the big legal battle for afterwards.


[Edited by canuckrefguy on Mar 13th, 2006 at 11:58 AM]

Was he not awarded this playoff game previously? Yes. Did the color of his skin prevent him from being awarded that game? No. But now he and another official get into an altercation that spreads onto the floor and is very unprofessional. He could have walked away and not let it become a big argument that everyone saw. It obviously embarrassed other officials and most certainly the tournament staff. They have the right to get rid of those officials. Both officials were removed. Good.

Z

I can't resist this any longer. Why were referees fighting over the KY? Sorry, but that's been running through my head since this post started.

Why did game admin. see fit to remove one of the working game officials? Why not just remove the troublemakers? Short of pulling a weapon, I can't see why the BOTH of them were kicked out of the building altogether.

[/B][/QUOTE]According to the story, <b>both</b> officials were removed from further game assignments and <b>both</b> officials</b> were escorted from the building. I imagine that was because of the lack of professionalism shown by <b>both</b> officials.

Does anybody know what color the <b>other</b> official was, btw? Or does that make a difference?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by canuckrefguy
[B]Do you have enough information to make that judgement?

Is it not at least possible that our main subject was wrongly penalized because another official took it upon themselves to barge into the locker room at halftime and stir up trouble?

Remember, I'm not defending his court injunction, but something here doesn't seem right.

Larry Boucher who is on the NFHS Basketball Committee about 2 years ago came to the IHSA Official's Convention and spoke in a few sessions. One of the things he said was that Kentucky because of racial problems and history requires assignments at the State Tournament to be made with racial consideration. In other words, there is a requirement by law to have some many Black officials and so many female officials that work the State Tournament. Now if the Kentucky Supreme Court had to step in to make assignments fair, why would you not expect a situation like this to have some underlining racial factor to it? Now I am not saying it was, but if that is the way the guy feels, he has the right to say that. I am tired of people always telling others that they cannot claim racism when there is not only a clear history of such in this country, but it there is history in that state. I do not know of any state that had to have their State Supreme Court had to step in to alleviate racial history for officiating assignments. Do know of another state? If you had ever personally experienced racial problems throughout your life, you might understand why this get brought up a lot in this country.

Peace

"I tried to prevent this," said Montgomery

Odd way to do that by having your lawyer file the injunction.

Montgomery may well have been the victim here. But if he wants to fight it, do it after the state tournament. Sounds like someone who believes he's bigger than the game.

You've gotta be kidding me! I don't care what happened in the locker room. As an official, you have to be more responsible than to carry your personal issue onto the court. The judge that ordered the injunction should've smacked the guy and ordered the other official to be smacked. After both received their smacks, continue the tournament without them. If you cannot hold yourself to a high standard, you shouldn't be officiating a tournament game (no matter how much you've proven yourself).

I'll expect a lawsuit from Montgomery. He's done...

Play-On!!!

DAC

Kentucky, or Ontario???
 

Re: Kentucky, or Ontario???
 

Oooooooh....JR,

Care to elaborate?

:confused:

I don't have any problem if someone says they don't have enough information to know whether this has to do with race or not because there really isn't enough information. However, I'm bothered by the way people seem to dismiss race as a possibility. One side says it is about race, the other side says (I assume) it isn't and the court will decide, but it is always so easy to dismiss it as "playing the race card." Well, I'm starting to believe there is a "reverse race card" or something for those who continually say this.

A retired Chief (Air Force E-9) told me last week about Montgomery Alabama being a racist city. He told me he went there to visit some good friends with his wife and they stayed with the couple they went to visit. After he left some of the neighbors asked this couple why they let some black people stay with them. True story.

Affirmative action is still an answer. True story.

There is a new show called "black and white" where a white family is made up to be black and a black family is made up to be white so they can see how it is to live like each other. True story.

I said all of that to say that race problems still exist in the United States and it would be naive to think the world of basketball is in a bubble without these problems. Whether we like the messangers or not, I would hope we could at least consider (like some have done) these accusations. I'm just as sick of this being an issue as the next man, but until we treat each other equally across the board it will still happen. Unfortunately, we will all probably be dead and gone before that happens.

What's the over/under on how many more posts are written before this thread is closed?

It seems that maybe this paragraph from the article is supposed to cause locals to nod knowingly at each other:

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

It means nothing to me, but seems like it might hold a clue to a Kentucky scholar.

I hope the thread doesn't close as long as it doesn't get personal. Well, entirely personal.

Re: Re: Kentucky, or Ontario???
 

I tried to send you a PM but I can't.

I will change my settings....

I have two thoughts on this - which is pretty good for me, to have two thoughts at once that is...

1)No way in the world should some other official be in the locker room starting an argument and calling another official "boy"...that guy deserved to be escorted out of the gym and lose his game.The partners in the locker room should have gotten that guy out of there.

2)Montgomery had no business letting the argument continue out into the hallway and onto the floor - all he had to do was say "I'm done with this" and walk out onto the court. If the other guy follows and keep yelling, he gets escorted out and Montgomery stays - it's really simple. He chose not to do that and it cost him...

Two good points.

41. What are you taking?

It baffles me that a judge even considered an injunction let alone issued one that would shut down the game. That judge ought to be booted just as far as any basketball official in this case.


Montgomery may or may not have been wronged but for him to say he was just doing the right thing and that it wasn't about Montgomery is a bunch of hogwash in my opinion. His actions reek of "ME,ME,ME".

Exactly my point. I don't care if the officials involved were white, black, green or blue. Any officials that are so unprofessional that they take an argument out on the floor deserve to be gone.

Z

Oh, you're long. I'm thinking 20, tops!

UPDATE
Judge says 7th Region game can be played

The Courier-Journal

A Kentucky Court of Appeals judge has ruled that the Seventh Region boysÂ’ 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 SaturdayÂ’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 eveningÂ’s final game, got involved in an argument that started in the officialsÂ’ 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.

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.

How do you know that after only hearing <b>one</b> side? :confused:

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.

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.

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.

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]

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 <b>know</b> that someone called someone else "boy"?

You have an <b>unsubstantiated</b> statement by one of the parties. You have <b>no</b> statement by the other party.

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

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.

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?

Isn't that where it usually lies?

Not always, but sometimes yep!

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.

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 <b>am</b> a racist.

Unbelievable....... :rolleyes:

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

Old news- see the second post on p.3 of this thread. The Court of Appeals and the Kentucky Supreme court both rejected Montgomery's case, and the postponed game has already been played.

Everything else concerning this situation is still nothing but sheer speculation, and that may never change. We may never know for sure what really happened.

Wasn't it about this same time last year that we had the situation at East High in Anchorage, Alaska??? Remember - the officials in the locker room after a play-off game were recorded by the coach's brother or brother-in-law or something...turned out that they made some very crude remarks about the coach and girl's HS ball in general...why do our officiating brethren continue to shoot us all in the collective foot by doing such stupid things??? Regardless of what the "outcome" of this situation is, the fact remains that all the other Kentucky officials will bear the brunt of the public's anger over this for years...

I don't believe that it was posted that the official's association was paying for the expense of playing the postponed game.

Yup, and I don't think that the outcome of that Alaska situation has ever been publically divulged. If there has been an outcome.....

This Kentucky situation may turn out exactly the same.

This is crazy. I know both of these guys. Vic used to work in the SEC development program and was released for some personal problems. I think he still works DI ball in the MAC. Bailey works the pro ABA league. Can you believe it got to this point. I bet they have both put their officiating career's on the line.

Just did a google on this and found this:


http://news.kypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll...78/1033/NEWS02

Courage to Stand Alone
 

Hello. It appears that I am the subject of some negative talk in the referee circles. However, many referees who are doing the talking have not once asked me what happened. They are only listening to others referees and joining in on the negative talk because that is what is “juicy.” However, I have a response and that is basketball is simply basketball; I must and will be a man first. If I lose officiating due to this, I will sleep well at night knowing that I have my dignity, honor, and self-respect. I will always fight for what I believe no matter what. In times like these, I have discovered who my REAL friends are and who are not to be trusted.

To those who want to further try to make me look bad and say that I should have done this or done that: Unless you are in my shoes, do not criticize me. Before you criticize someone, try to get the whole truth…there is always two sides to every story. Do not believe everything you read in the paper. They (Courier-journal) did not describe everything correctly. Things were omitted for whatever reason.

Regardless of what the majority of the public may think about my decision to challenge being removed from a game that I earned and that I felt I should not have been removed, I stood up for what I felt was right. I did not place myself above students or fans. Instead, I challenged an unjust decision due to the premeditated actions of another official, Darrell Bailey coming into the locker room – uninvited, and had to endure, in my opinion, racial slurs. It is easy for people to say, “Walk away,” when you are not facing the blunt of attacks or in that person’s shoes. The unfortunate outcome was what it was (the game being postponed), but never was my intent to harm kids in any way. I just wanted to work the game I earned and had been scheduled to work. What hasn't been mentioned is that I was removed by a person who I did not think had authority to remove me. Also, I have YET to speak to my assigning secretary. He was not the person who removed me and the KHSAA was not there either. They (KHSAA) only supported the decision AFTER it was unjustly made.

Nevertheless, after the “game” of basketball is played, I am the one who must look myself in the mirror and be able to maintain my self-respect, honor, and dignity. Yes, to me, that is worth fighting to defend...even if I lose officiating. This is an avocation no matter how much I love the game. I still have my career and that is what pays the bills.

Still, there is another lesson here: fight for what you believe no matter if EVERYONE is against you. It takes more courage to stand alone in the eye of a storm than to join the band wagon of negativity, which many have. There are some that have privately supported my actions. However, my strength comes from above through Psalm 1 as well as “My head is bloody, but unbowed - Invictus,” and “See It Through.” I can and will endure regardless of what some may think of me…

I DID NOT STOP THE GAME! The injunction was for me to WORK the game. The KHSAA opted to postpone the game rather than go against the decision to remove me from the game. I have no problem allowing everyone and anyone to see the court order. In fact, I am faxing it to Referee Magazine tomorrow...they called for an interview.

I did not want this attention. I just wanted to work the game I earned. I love officiating as you all do too. I felt that fighting for this was worth the risk. I stand by my decision to challenge the decision of the KHSAA despite public opinion that I was wrong.

I will take responsibility for getting into a verbal dispute, but I should have never had to be subjected to being called "BOY!" over and over to the point where I could no longer demonstrate restraint. Even when I walked away the LAST time, Darrell said, "That's right, you better walk away boy!" I utilized my legal right to challenge and for this I will NEVER apologize.

As far as being on the court, I never made it out to the floor. They stopped me after I was out of the locker room and prevented me from working the second half. That is why the altercation was visible by the public. They told me I could not finish the game in front of everyone. My honor, creditability, and reputation was at state. I told them over and over, "This isn't right! This isn't fair! He came into the locker room and started with me!"

Bottomline...if Darrell does not come into the locker room, attack me verbally, and accuse me of something I did not do...this never happens and you all never know who I am. I would have been wrong if I had beat him down too, right? Instead, I went to court to fight for what I believed.

I appreciate those of you who support my actions, but even if you do not, I will not allow my manhood to be questioned. Like I said, when the game of basketball is over I must still be a man first. Basketball will go on without me, but my manhood and self-respect is something I must live with until I breath no more.


Take care,

Victor Montgomery

So now we have the news accounts and your account. It still sounds to me like both you and the other official were in the wrong and put the tournament officials in such an embarrassing spot that they felt they needed to remove you both. You were both unprofessional in your role as officials and you paid the price. It also sounds like you are trying to make this a noble thing you did rather than owning up to your responsibility. That happens a lot these days.

Z

Thank you for sharing your side. I completely respect your position and your actions -- and your coming forward on this site.

1) I completely agree with you, Victor. There are always 2 sides, and usually when you hear both of them, they are as different as can be. The problem here is that we, as officials and people, have only heard your side of the story and have read what was published in the newspaper. We have <b>not</b> heard the side of the other official involved, nor are we privy as to why the KHSSA made the decision that they did, or why the courts ruled as they did. Even then, it will probably take a heckuva lot more to find the truth in this unfortunate situation than just hearing two disparate accounts and trying to ascertain which one is more believable. That isn't fair to anybody, and, as officials, we are trained to be fair.

A situation like this cries out for a much more involved look at it by people trained and certified to deal with discrimination complaints imo. Hopefully, a proper and fair investigation by a neutral party could find a little bit more out about this situation. Hopefully you, or someone else, has already initiated such action. I know that, just from using Google, that you can lay a complaint over the web and get an investigation.

http://www.louisvilleky.gov/HumanRel...laint+form.htm

Jmo, but until we get more solid information, we should be giving <b>everybody</b> the benefit of the doubt. That includes the other official and the KHSAA.

Why do people think they have to make a scene to have honor and dignity and be able to absolve any poor behavior in the name of such. Both guys screwed up and one wanted to get no punishment by saying the other guy started it. Maybe he did. While Vic may have earned the game by prior actions he also lost the game by his own actions.

You have 1st hand knowlege that Mr. Montgomery made a scene? I'm sure if this were a situation where a coach entered the locker room, quotes like Maybe he did wouldn't be appearing in people's posts.

Huh?:confused:

Mr. Montgomery admitted himself that "the altercation was visible to the public view" in his post above. The story from the newspaper stated that the reason that <b>both</b> officials were removed from games was that they <b>both</b> made a scene in public.

I agree with Camron. Both officials were wrong in taking their dispute into the public domain.

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.

BadNews, I'm not sure anyone is doubting Vic's account of the incident. I don't think anyone is calling him a liar. JR's point is that even if everything happened exactly the way Vic says it did, he still deserved to be taken off the game.

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.

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 <b>all</b> of the details, I don't think that there is nearly enough information available to decide what version is correct. Iow, I think that <b>both</b> 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 <b>either</b> party imo.

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

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.

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 <b>you</b> have and we do not need all the evidence that you want to come to that conclusion.

Peace

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.

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 <b>NOT</b> telling anyone how to feel at all. I defy you to find one instance in this thread where I came to <b>any</b> 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 <b>any</b> 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.

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

JR
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

I understand what Mr. Montgomery is going through. Now, if he was the one who made a statement that he had two other officials removed due to their connection to another school, that is not right. He should not be allowed to make such decisions.

This may have sprung the entire altercation from the other official. Now, the other official should not have called him a "BOY." But he did, Mr. Montgomery state he tried to walk away but his manhood was threatened. My manhood only gets threatened when someone physically assaults me. Name calling is a psychological thing that can turn around if you use a little thinking.

However, I am white and cannot understand what being called "boy" feels like. However, I have been called a "cracker" but I laughed and went on. I am sure Mr. Montgomery felt threatened but as an official, you must be more professional, get the game in and fight your battle with the KHSAA.

It's sad this we have to deal with this in todays world, but things as racism will never go away. How can it, we have the black coaches association, mrs. black american pageant, and other countless organizations and if it were white groups, the white group would be called racist or discriminating. I think all groups should be united, that is who we are, Americans.

I hate that the black card is being played, but let me tell you, if this official called Mr. Montgomery a "boy," he should be punished. We have no place for this, I feel like all officials belong to the best fraternity in the world. It is black and white, that is the color of our shirts, but we have the same love for the game. I just hope this gets resolved.

Oh yea, levis at a game, it should not happen. KY, was a border state during our Civil War of 1861-1865.

Good luck

This is my point of view exactly. This is the reason I took on the might JR in this thread. This is not about right or wrong here as it relates to our point of view. I know that we would all hope that be just walk away from situations like this, but Montgomery should have never been put in that situation in the first place. I do not care what Bailey's side of the story is, he has not a leg to stand on. If I am going to confront anyone that officiates, I will do it outside of the game, not go to their locker room to make a point. If Bailey gets banned, he got what he deserved. I also cannot speak to what should have been the ultimate result of both officials. I was not there to know if Montgomery did something wrong here. All I know is he had a right to be left alone in the locker room.

Peace

Pants in the Picture
 

I know how to dress professionally for a game. I wear a shirt and tie to most games as other officials do as well. The reason that I was dressed this way (casual) that you all have seen in the picture in the C-J was due to the fact that I had spent ALL day with my attorney on Saturday. I was not dressed for the game because I did not think I was going to be granted the injunction in the first place. I was only hopeful that the judge would see my point of view and side with me. However, once the circuit court judge ruled in my favor, I had no time to go home as the injunction was granted at about 5:15 PM and served at 5:30 PM. The game was scheduled to be played at 7:00 PM. I did have my gear…as most officials ALWAYS have their gear in their car – ready to work.

When I stated that “I tried to prevent this,” that was to inform everyone (public) that I exercised options of calling Larry Boucher on Friday night, my attorney informed the KHSAA and my assigning secretary and Jerry Wyman (the person who removed me from the game – who I did not think had the authority to do so) on Saturday morning that we were considering legal action to keep me in the game. We were hopeful that they would put me in the game without legal action. However, they were insistent about keeping me out. Jerry Wyman stated, “Do what you got to do!” So we did…

I discipline kids everyday. I also listen to kids everyday when they have a dispute with a teacher or another student. I give them DUE PROCESS. Understand? I had to act quickly because the game was being played the next day.

I am an educator and I care deeply about the welfare of not only my students, but kids in general. I am not challenging taking me off the 1st game…there was little I could do about it at the time. But I still feel that I was within my rights to challenge being removed by someone who had no authority to do so and then the KHSAA backs up that decision AFTER the fact. Again, the visible part of the “altercation,” (as it is being called) was only after Jerry Wyman took me off both games. I was in the public view because I was attempting to go finish the second half. I was able and ready, but not allowed to finish my job. I disputed the removal with the words I stated in the previously submitted post.

One more thing...I have NO authority to have ANY official removed from a game. From my understanding, the assigning secretary switched the two other officials due to pressure. It is ironic that JTown won the KY state championship too despite having to play the regional final on Monday.

I do not want to air "dirty laundry" about our local association, but note this as well: Darrell Bailey is the president of the KBOA. Form whatever opinions you like regarding this.

A few posters have stated another fact, the courts have intervened in officiating in KY before. They (KHSAA) are mandated to bring blacks to the state tournaments. They bring only what they are mandated to bring...3. No more, no less...regardless if more than 3 are qualified. (3 out of 16)

Last thing, I am not looking for support or politicking for such. I just wanted those who were not informed of everything and were forming negative opinions about me to know my side of what happened. I read as you all do, with an open mind. I hope that if any of you all ever meet me or see me working a game that you will have pleasant thoughts of me. If not, so be it. You are right, we are a fraternity and I agree, this was a very unfortunate incident for all involved.

You decided a fellow official was guilty of racial discrimination without hearing his side of the story, or waiting to see if any more details are forthcoming from other sources. That speaks volumes about you also imo.

I expected the other poster to pull the race card. He always does. I can see that you are no different than he is.

How can you NOT "pull the race card" in this situation? Bailey, I assume, is white. Montgomery is an African-American. My first reaction upon reading this story was: Wonder if he would've gotten pulled from the game if he was white?

Furthermore, if I were an African-American and someone called me "boy," I wonder how I would react. I'd probably want to punch the guy in the mouth. I would assume that "boy" is only slightly less inflammatory than the N-word. I may be wrong.

Rich, the "race card" that I'm referring to is a poster inferring that someone is a racist because they don't agree with the other person's views. I've seen that one used here too many times, and now I'm seeing it from another source. That's the inference that BadNewsRef was trying to make of myself. That's just despicable imo.

From the story back on p1 of this thread, <b>both</b> officials were pulled from games, apparently for letting the dispute spill out into public view. As for the "boy" part of it, I agree with you 100% <b>if</b> the slur was made. All I have been saying is that until it is proven that Bailey actually did call Momtgomery "boy", then Bailey should be given the benefit of the doubt- as should anyone who is on the receiving end of any <b>unproven</b> allegations, no matter what color they might be. Similary, Montgomery has to be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether he tried to get 2 other officials removed from a previus game, which apparently started this mess. If the allegations <b>are</b> proven to be true, then Bailey should never be allowed to officate another game in Kentucky.

For the record, imo there were different phrases to this incident:
1) I've haven't commented yet on what started it off, I think. I will now. Bailey had no business entering that dressing room at half-time and starting the altercation. That's completely wrong. He deserves to be disciplined for that act alone by whoever is responsible for disciplining wrongful acts by officials in Ky. Hopefully, he will be. If so, I doubt that we will ever hear about the discipline though.

2) The argument <b>in</b> the dressing room is a separate act. During that argument, it is <b>alleged</b> that Bailey called Montgomery "boy". Until those allegations are proven or disproven, it is my opinion that Bailey should be given the benefit of the doubt, the same as any person who has been accused of anything without accompanying evidence to prove that accusation should be given the benefit of the doubt. That is all that I have been saying all along. Bailey is innocent until <b>proven</b> guilty. If Bailey <b>is</b> eventually proven guilty, then again- imo- his career as an official in Ky should be over. And...if the allegations are proven false, then Montgomery should have to answer for making those allegations also. Whichever way it turns out, there should be <b>no</b> discipline involved either way until the allegations are proven or disproven. This one shouldn't be difficult to investigate either. Montgomery's partners shoulda been in the dressing room and shoulda witnessed what went down. Get their stories.

3) The argument then spilled out into public view. I've already commented on that. Imo, both officials were wrong to let that happen. We don't know all the facts here also, but whoever convened that regional seemed to agree that both officials were wrong. They removed <b>both</b> officials from further games. The Appeals and Supreme court of the state of Ky apparently backed up the right of the convenor to make that judgement, even though we don't have the reasons as to <b>why</b> the courts made that decision.

Hopefully, someone is investigating this mess. Also hopefully, a racial complaint has been put in to the state of Kentucky, and that complaint will be investigated properly. That's the <b>fair</b> way to handle it.

And how exactly how do you <b>know</b> what color I am?

And since you are a big fan of evidence, this is part of a post from me the last time Race came up in this forum, the Massachesetts coach who claimed officials were racist.

Yep, thats me, pulling the race card again.

This is Bigger Than Vic...Race in KHSAA
 

I live in Louisville, KY and know both officials. I am also a referee. I know that Vic has always been treated unfairly by many of the white officials in Louisville. I just started refereeing a few years ago and I am not embarrassed to say that I am not at his (Vic’s) level in high school or college. Vic is at a very high level and many officials in the KBOA do not like him because of that. I always wondered why…

Vic has always been very helpful to me during the season and at summer camps. He also helped many white officials too. He truly loves refereeing. I later found out that in the entire state of KY that he is the ONLY NCAA Division I men’s official in the KHSAA! Can you believe that? With that being said, he faces a great deal of envy and flat out racism that comes his way because he referees at a level higher than 95% of the officials in Louisville and Kentucky for that matter. I will also say this; Vic is not shy, bashful, or timid. He speaks his mind and many do not like that either. He knows that some of these “guys” do not like him, but he moves forward.

I respect him not only for his ability on the court, but for saying enough is enough. I know that Vic would not have reacted as he did if in fact Darrell did not do what he claims. This may also bring to light the treatment and “closet” feelings that the white officials have in our association. They do not like Vic because he works harder and is simply better than them. They accuse him of being buddies with the coaches. I would think that he did not rise as high because he kisses ----. He made the most of his opportunities.

I remain hopeful that he will not only be allowed to continue, but that he will not let this damper his love for our craft. Darrell was wrong. Many in the KBOA know this too, but will not defend Vic. The KBOA majority resent the fact that a black man is higher than them. Plus, Darrell is the president right now. Hum...

Here is another question that may tie it all up: Why is Vic the target and why is he the ONLY black official in the state of KY in the KHSAA that officiates at this level? He is a role model official for not only new black officials, but anyone who wants to work hard to rise to a high level of refereeing.

That's a good question, one that I've thought about.

Why would a man who is working D-1 basketball want to continue to officiate high school basketball, especially when it would seem that he faces such persecution?