Here’s a Little More About That Referee Who Forced a Black Wrestler to Cut His Dreads

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

A few days ago, this video went viral:

I didn’t post about this at the time because it seemed like there had to be more to the story. But there was nothing in the news reports. Today, though, I figured a few days had gone by and maybe the local press had dug into things a little more deeply. After a bit of sleuthing, I think I finally know what happened. I should warn you beforehand that this doesn’t answer the question of whether the referee in this video was racist or not. But it does explain how this seemingly bizarre incident unraveled:

  • Wrestling rules require that hair be cut to “normal” collar length in back and above the earlobes on the sides.
  • Andrew Johnson, the teenage wrestler in the video, had hair that was “a little too long,” according to his father, so he had to wear a cap.
  • The match referee, Alan Maloney, “regarded as one of the state’s top wrestling referees,” was late to the meet and didn’t see Johnson’s cap during weigh-in. When he saw it before Johnson’s match began, he ruled that it was illegal.
  • Why? Because the rules have changed. “Johnson would’ve been in compliance in the past, but the rule changed within the past couple of seasons to require the cap to be attached to the headgear, according to Howie O’Neil, who’s officiated for 44 years.”
  • Johnson’s coach argued intensely with Maloney for several minutes, but Maloney wouldn’t budge. Finally, Johnson decided on his own to have his dreadlocks cut.
  • According to the New Jersey Courier-Post, Maloney was “acting in accordance with the rules, according to multiple South Jersey referees.” Ron Roberts, a wrestling referee of more than 20 years who also happens to be a Buena graduate, said “The interpretation of the rule was applied correctly. The kid had to have legal head cover by rule or he’s got to cut his hair.”
  • Buena had competed in a tournament the week before, presumably staffed by different referees, but this was their first dual meet of the year.

So this whole thing boils down to an opinion: should Maloney have simply warned Johnson and told him to get a regulation cap before his next meet? Or was he correct to enforce the rules as they stood?

I don’t know. Either way, though, what really sent this incident into the social media stratosphere was the discovery that Alan Maloney, the referee, had once called a fellow ref the n-word after having one too many drinks at an after-meet party:

Over a disagreement about homemade wine, said Preston Hamilton, who is African American, fellow referee Alan Maloney poked his finger in his chest and hurled the epithet….Hamilton told the Courier-Post he responded by slamming Maloney, who is white, to the ground.

….Maloney says he called Hamilton and apologized to him two days later, on Easter Sunday. “I left it alone,” Hamilton recalled. “I’ve known Al since I was 4 years old. I was just trying to leave it alone.”

….Four days after Preston Hamilton’s email to Southern Chapter President Sean Felkins about what he said transpired in the condo, Maloney emailed his fellow official.

“Preston, It was good speaking to you the other day (3/27/16) in regards to the statement you said i made. As i stated to you then i do not remember that i said what i was told, but i’m happy you accepted my apologies and i am glad we can move forward, very sorry that this happen. If you need to discuss anything further call me. Look forward to seeing you around and refing with you in the near future. best wishes, alan”

….On May 4, Hamilton got notification that an NJWOA ethics committee hearing for both parties would be held May 22….According to Felkins, Maloney volunteered to participate in an alcohol awareness program and sensitivity training. Both corrective actions were accepted, as long as he paid for and finished them. On top of that, Maloney received a one-year suspension from officiating, Felkins said.

So far, that’s all I can find out. Maloney and Hamilton were apparently longtime acquaintances (friends?); Maloney was tipsy when he used the n-word; he agreed to participate in sensitivity training; and he was suspended for a year. (Hamilton was suspended too, for slamming Maloney to the floor.)

As for the cap, it’s all a matter of how strictly Maloney should have enforced the rules. I have no idea about that, but perhaps I have some readers with wrestling experience who might shed some light on this?

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate