Jump to content

High school swimmer disqualified because ref saw ‘butt cheek touching butt cheek’


Umpire in Chief
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 1655 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

Okay let's keep this one clean... And I don't want it to seem like I'm ripping on other officials.

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/high-school-swimmer-dqd-because-ref-saw-butt-cheek-touching-butt-cheek

We often talk about judgement, given that this is a NFHS rule (which apparently there are no guidelines for interpreting this - Next years swimming casebook) would you enforce this rule in this situation?

IMO, this would be a prime example to enforce preventive officiating. Talk to the coach, tell them hey, Suzie's showing a little to much butt, could you make sure that's taken care of please or something like that. But to DQ someone for this, wow.

Another point Apparently other officials did not agree and publicly commented about it.  I don't know if I'd ever make a public comment about another official's call in a situation like this. What say you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We talk about OOO here all the time. Most of what we talk about pales in comparison to this.

I've seen other articles with a bit more detail from parents and others involved, including some serious allegations of the official being discriminatory in her actions. I'll withhold that judgment as I don't know any more than what's being reported. Suffice to say, this one will be fun to track.

Here's the current rule:

Quote

Suits shall be of one piece. A competitor shall not be permitted to participate wearing a suit that is not of decent appearance. Males shall wear suits which cover the buttocks and shall not extend above the waist or below the top of the kneecap. Females shall wear suits which cover the buttocks and breasts and shall not extend beyond the shoulders or below the top of the kneecap, nor cover the neck.

PENALTIES: When an official discovers a competitor wearing illegal attire as described in Article 2, the official shall:
1. when observed prior to the start of the heat/dive, notify the coach of the competitor to make the suit legal before becoming eligible to compete. If the competitor cannot comply without delaying the start of the heat/ dive, the competitor is disqualified from that event/dive and shall not be eligible for further competition until in a legal suit;
2. when observed after the heat/dive officially begins, disqualify the competitor at the completion of the heat/dive; nullify the competitor's performance time/score and he/she shall not be eligible for further competition until in a legal suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

Good to hear.

Here's ASAA's (Alaska School Athletic Association) statement: http://asaa.org/activities/swim-dive/. In effect, unless the suit was obviously modified by the swimmer, officials should stop looking for trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Umpire in Chief said:

Apparently other officials did not agree and publicly commented about it.  I don't know if I'd ever make a public comment about another official's call in a situation like this. What say you?

Just on this question: OHSAA will suspend officials who speak to the media; repeat offenders risk losing their permit.

And Twitter counts. Social media.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maven said:

PA tried and failed to make that case in court. "Close" is irrelevant under the law.

Yes, but I don't know that social media restrictions were part of their lawsuit. There are several checkpoints that have to be reached to be moved from contractor to employee; while PIAA was able to show some of those points were relevant, they couldn't prove others. While I think it's a very real argument, especially with the way some organizations (both state and the ones that are responsible for training and assigning), I also think it will be a hard fight to win.

As I said in my previous post: as organizations start to restrict our actions away from the field, they start to toe more of those lines that PA couldn't prove were crossed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Umpire in Chief said:

Okay let's keep this one clean... And I don't want it to seem like I'm ripping on other officials.

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/high-school-swimmer-dqd-because-ref-saw-butt-cheek-touching-butt-cheek

We often talk about judgement, given that this is a NFHS rule (which apparently there are no guidelines for interpreting this - Next years swimming casebook) would you enforce this rule in this situation?

IMO, this would be a prime example to enforce preventive officiating. Talk to the coach, tell them hey, Suzie's showing a little to much butt, could you make sure that's taken care of please or something like that. But to DQ someone for this, wow.

Another point Apparently other officials did not agree and publicly commented about it.  I don't know if I'd ever make a public comment about another official's call in a situation like this. What say you?

I think you should read this one

Apparently, we are missing things????????????

1. the original referee had to leave.

2. the referee who took over did the DQ.

3. The referee who took over did not DQ in a later relay race involving this student, while student was in same suit.

4. I am trying to find the box scores (yes, i know you can find it in "meet manager" but i do not have meet manager) for the whole meet as I believe she was in a couple of other races and not penalized. Why in one and why not in all the others unless you changed uniforms. The official did not tell the coach until after the race, rather than before the race in which the issue can be dealt with.

5. "Apparently" the official has disparaged with remarks in previous meets that could be heard by others, not a DQ, previously with this swimmer or her sister, about their uniforms fit.

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/09/10/ref-disqualifies-alaska-high-school-swimmer-deems-school-swimsuit-too-revealing/

https://www.workingmother.com/teen-wearing-school-swimsuit-disqualified-at-swim-meet-for-exposing-too-much-skin

oh yes--seek and yee shall find---the timeline of events in this saga

https://www.asdk12.org/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&ModuleInstanceID=26493&ViewID=7b97f7ed-8e5e-4120-848f-a8b4987d588f&RenderLoc=0&FlexDataID=40797&PageID=14639

order of swimming events at a NF meet

200 medley relay.....200 freestyle...200 Individual Medley......50 freestyle...diving...100 butterfly....100 freestyle...500 freestyle...200 free relay....100 backstroke....100 breastroke...400 free relay.

So, if in the 3rd event race, the 200 individual medley, the swimmer was legal, why was she illegal for a 4 events later assuming there was diving. Why wasn't the coach approached to change at that time. The 3rd event which is the 200 medley has 4 different strokes performed, 1 of which the swimmer is on their back with the front of the body showing. The other 3 strokes are on the stomach in which the backside of the whole body is exposed. So she was not DQ'd in this event. Plenty of time to see the illegal (supposedly) uniform here at this point. But, after the original referee left, the official that move into the referee spot DQ's on the 100 free in which the swimmers back of the total body is exposed. Then, no DQ in the same swim suit for the last 2 events with the same referee from the original DQ event.

Big time problem going on here.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the official not notice in that previous event?  Did the official get caught staring at her (and subsequently ruled to "cover his tracks")?  We will probably never know the truth behind why everything transpired the way it did.  Agreed that this should have been handled with preventative officiating, and aDRESSed with the coach before making it an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is all kinds of “wrong” in this whole thing.  It is hard to say how much is participant hyperbole and how much is bad reporting, because it reeks of both.  But taking things as they are presented ... (and admitting I know nothing about swimming) ... 

1) It does not matter if the suit was school issued or approved.  The official’s ruling was on how it was being worn at that time.  The official made a call that was not only supported, but prescribed by the rules.  The fact that the swimmer was not disqualified in any other events lends itself to this.

2) The first part that disgusts — and yes, “disgusts” is a strong word used intentionally on my part — is the Association’s follow up instructions to essentially ignore the rule.  :big_no  Associations need to FIX or DELETE rules that are archaic, contain verbiage that is either outdated, or do not accomplish their intent.  If this rule is intended to prevent student athletes from modifying (or “rolling”) their uniforms, then write the rule to say that.  However, as presented, that is not what the rule says.  Sending a memo after the fact instructing people to ignore the rule is careless at best, reckless at worst.

3) Since the Association took that approach, I would hope that they would have supported the official had that call not been made.  In other words, when the second-place swimmer’s coach protested with video, I would hope the Association would say “well, yes, that is the rule, but ... we’re going to ignore it.”

4) The next part that disgusts me is the claim of racism, sexism, and body shaming made pretty quickly by a fool who then states “There were three other swimmers who look just like [the athlete] and they weren’t disqualified.”  :shakehead:  Sorry ... all credibility you have is now gone.

5) Preventative officiating says it all and sometimes a no-call is preventative officiating.  A VB Official I worked with once told me the story about a bra strap.  He was working with a decorated female official during a post-season match.  During warm ups, his partner pointed out a “well endowed” player wearing a non-uniform/non-neutral colored sports bra that could be seen from under her uniform.  His partner said, “You need to go tell the coach that is illegal and the player needs to go change.”  His response: “I am not going to go tell the coach that I was staring at her underage player’s bra.  If you are comfortable doing that, go for it.  Otherwise, it isn’t affecting anything in my judgment.”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

His response: “I am not going to go tell the coach that I was staring at her underage player’s bra.  If you are comfortable doing that, go for it.  Otherwise, it isn’t affecting anything in my judgment.”

I agree with his not dealing with it, but his reasoning is off-base. Observing something doesn't mean staring at it. If something catches my eye - which an off-colored undergarment definitely can do - that's not wrong. He just accused his partner of doing the very thing he didn't want to be accused of doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you are saying @yawetag, but he was concerned with the (mis)impression it could give.

Heck, somebody already went there in this thread suggesting the official was ogling the swimmer and covering his tracks.  The same logic was presented in the article that had the quote about racism, sexism, and body shaming.  It falls under “don’t provide your adversary with the bullets.”  Facts and actualities be damned, people are going to jump to radical conclusions that support the framework they use to define their world.  :shrug:

The other take away that bothered me was the other official telling him to go deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

There is all kinds of “wrong” in this whole thing.  It is hard to say how much is participant hyperbole and how much is bad reporting, because it reeks of both.  But taking things as they are presented ... (and admitting I know nothing about swimming) ... 

1) It does not matter if the suit was school issued or approved.  The official’s ruling was on how it was being worn at that time.  The official made a call that was not only supported, but prescribed by the rules.  The fact that the swimmer was not disqualified in any other events lends itself to this.

2) The first part that disgusts — and yes, “disgusts” is a strong word used intentionally on my part — is the Association’s follow up instructions to essentially ignore the rule.  :big_no  Associations need to FIX or DELETE rules that are archaic, contain verbiage that is either outdated, or do not accomplish their intent.  If this rule is intended to prevent student athletes from modifying (or “rolling”) their uniforms, then write the rule to say that.  However, as presented, that is not what the rule says.  Sending a memo after the fact instructing people to ignore the rule is careless at best, reckless at worst.

3) Since the Association took that approach, I would hope that they would have supported the official had that call not been made.  In other words, when the second-place swimmer’s coach protested with video, I would hope the Association would say “well, yes, that is the rule, but ... we’re going to ignore it.”

4) The next part that disgusts me is the claim of racism, sexism, and body shaming made pretty quickly by a fool who then states “There were three other swimmers who look just like [the athlete] and they weren’t disqualified.”  :shakehead:  Sorry ... all credibility you have is now gone.

5) Preventative officiating says it all and sometimes a no-call is preventative officiating.  A VB Official I worked with once told me the story about a bra strap.  He was working with a decorated female official during a post-season match.  During warm ups, his partner pointed out a “well endowed” player wearing a non-uniform/non-neutral colored sports bra that could be seen from under her uniform.  His partner said, “You need to go tell the coach that is illegal and the player needs to go change.”  His response: “I am not going to go tell the coach that I was staring at her underage player’s bra.  If you are comfortable doing that, go for it.  Otherwise, it isn’t affecting anything in my judgment.”

As usual, you're talking when you shouldn't be. Literally nothing other than your point 5 has any validity and the fact that you even mentioned what you did in 4 shows how ignorant (at best) you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Matt said:

As usual, you're talking when you shouldn't be. Literally nothing other than your point 5 has any validity and the fact that you even mentioned what you did in 4 shows how ignorant (at best) you are.

Well, I suppose you could support your statements ... or just do that.  :shakehead:

The article provided by @Thunderheadshttps://www.yahoo.com/news/swimsuit-controversy-alaskan-swimmer-disqualified-200541639.html

Willis's story immediately sparked outrage in the community, including from Lauren Langford, a local swim coach who called the incident an "inexcusable" case of sexism, racism and body shaming.

"All of these girls are all wearing suits that are cut the same way," Langford said in a now-viral blog post written after the meet. "And the only girl who gets disqualified is a mixed-race girl with rounder, curvier features."

...

Langford, who coached Willis and her sisters when they were younger, said she's never seen a swimmer intentionally adjust their suit to make it more revealing, adding that she believed the high schooler was being unfairly targeted.

"It comes down in my opinion to the race thing," Langford told the Anchorage Daily News. "It was so targeted. It was so intentional and so individual. She’s one of three girls on [her team] who look like her."

Langford was also quick to note that Willis was wearing suit assigned by her team and that none of her other teammates were disqualified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

"All of these girls are all wearing suits that are cut the same way," Langford said in a now-viral blog post written after the meet. "And the only girl who gets disqualified is a mixed-race girl with rounder, curvier features."

Certainly not defending the official here, but the reason she's the only one disqualified is BECAUSE she's "rounder" and "curvier". If the school doesn't have a suit sized to her proportions and she's forced to wear the best-fitting suit they offer, then she's going to be showing more than the less-round, less-curved girls. The fact she's mixed-race is immaterial, unless you can show a pattern of this behavior.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, yawetag said:

Certainly not defending the official here, but the reason she's the only one disqualified is BECAUSE she's "rounder" and "curvier". If the school doesn't have a suit sized to her proportions and she's forced to wear the best-fitting suit they offer, then she's going to be showing more than the less-round, less-curved girls. The fact she's mixed-race is immaterial, unless you can show a pattern of this behavior.

Seeing her picture, without knowing she was mixed race I would have never guessed it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, umpstu said:

Seeing her picture, without knowing she was mixed race I would have never guessed it.

And this is in Alaska, not the lower 48, so "race" doesn't automatically mean B&W like we may think here...let's remember that mixed race in Alaska is far more likely to be Native American & White versus what most would stereo-typically think of down here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Matt said:

This is not accurate. Single acts can be racially-motivated.

You are absolutely correct. I worded that horribly.

My point was that unless there's proof other than "she's the only mixed-race girl here," then it's probably best left unsaid. If this girl was penalized and there are others who were just as exposed or worst, then maybe you can use this argument. It would also be applicable if the official were overheard saying something discriminatory toward her race.

But to imply racism just because she was the only mixed-race girl there is a hill I wouldn't want to die on when making this argument.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, yawetag said:

You are absolutely correct. I worded that horribly.

My point was that unless there's proof other than "she's the only mixed-race girl here," then it's probably best left unsaid. If this girl was penalized and there are others who were just as exposed or worst, then maybe you can use this argument. It would also be applicable if the official were overheard saying something discriminatory toward her race.

But to imply racism just because she was the only mixed-race girl there is a hill I wouldn't want to die on when making this argument.

 

Even worse when explicit accusations of racism are made and she was not the only mixed-race girl there.

Quote

"It comes down in my opinion to the race thing," Langford told the Anchorage Daily News. "It was so targeted. It was so intentional and so individual. She’s one of three girls on [her team] who look like her."

i do not think it means what you think it means the princess bride GIF

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...