It was one of the first lines in the article. I also did not say anything about being racist or that this person is that way. But if that was suggested, unless I hear otherwise or more of the story, that is my first take. That does not mean that is what happen or the basis for the conflict. Also considering what has been said to me, that is the closest thing I can think of to make me even considering kicking the a$$ of a coach while still on the court. And in the past when there have been articles of conflict between officials, coaches and fans that included very specific elements of accusation of racial tensions, there have been people here that have dismissed it because they want to believe otherwise. It seems unless you have the KKK directly involved, people want to dismiss any accusation of an incident bases on race. Just because you do not see it does not mean it was not there. I hope that is not the case, but I think it is likely. If you disagree, that is fine with me. I have been in enough situations as an official and have wondered why certain things were said to certain people about certain things. This situation makes me wonder and I have the right to voice that opinion.

Peace

Talk about reading what you want to see...the only reference to race was "black-on-white crime"....a statement of fact regarding the skin color of the participants...nothing more. A few people here were suggesting it was the reason...primarily not you but you did softly back those suggestions.

Check out your posts #18 and #28.
I don't doubt it and support you 100% if you tell me the coach actually said or did something that was racial in nature.
Conflicts happen for a multitude of reasons. Race is merely one of them. Do coaches or fans and officials of the same race have conflicts? Of course they do. The reasons for all of those conflicts can also exist between differing races too. Just because two races are involved doesn't automatically make race the reason for the conflict.
I prefer to at least see some tiny shred of a fact that it was racial aside from only knowing the color of the skin of the parties before I'd even consider it racial. Coming to a racial conclusion based only on the skin color of the participants is exactly what the entire civil rights movement was about. It was about being treated equal and having the same opportunities regardless of skin color. To come to any conclusion base solely on skin color is against the principles of fairness and equality.
I don't disagree that is a possible reason for the reaction and among one of a few most likely reasons....but there are others. No one, not me, not you, no one has any idea about the nature of the altercation from the info we have. To come to any conclusion either way is plain ignorant. Like I said earlier, making such a claim would be just as despicable as claiming the official couldn't control himself because of his race. The official was simply human, was insulted in some inflammatory way, and reacted.

Camron,

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. I just think you have to understand that we all come to early conclusions on early information. It does not mean that point of view will not change or evolve over time. And I am sure there is a lot more to this story than what is put in the article. Just like there was more to the story about that Kentucky situation that we discussed here a few years back. And honestly we will never get the full story anyway on what really was said or what really happen. All we know is an official is choking a coach and something had to be said or done to provoke that kind of response, right or wrong.

Peace

I think the ref was just offering the coach a Red Stripe beer.