By Elliot Worsell
WHEN this time last year I found myself watching numerous potential referees sit before officials of the British Boxing Board of Control in the hope of turning professional, the only thing that stuck out to me and, indeed, the only thing emphasized by those They directed the process. – was how important it was for referees to understand and, ideally, avoid social media.
While a blanket ban on all things social media was never suggested, it was evident that an arbitrator’s approach said a lot about his or her approach to officiating, at least in the minds of the Board members. For example, an obsession with it (i.e., a desire to tell the world every detail of your life) would suggest, to the Board, a carelessness and perhaps even an ego, neither of which are traits found in any referee. decent. Furthermore, if they use such platforms to offer their opinions on the sport, whether then or now, referees could also risk being accused of bias when they later make an in-ring decision deemed controversial.
“At the very least, there is a chance that you will be criticized by the boxer you scored on or stopped,” said Dennis Gilmartin, Southern Area secretary. “Social media is the biggest change we have had in terms of refereeing in the last 15 years. It goes without saying that referees cannot comment on social media about boxers when they may be named for that same boxer in the next month, six months or even five years. People will go and find something they said five years earlier, even if you just wrote, “I think he’s a good boxer.” Five years ago you had no idea you’d meet this boxer in the ring, but all it takes is one call that people consider controversial and those old posts of yours will come to light.
“As a result, your conduct on social media must be beyond reproach. You should be very careful about things that could be misinterpreted and have an impact on your career. It would be a terrible way to see a career cut short or even impacted. “It is a minefield, social networks, for any official who works in boxing.”
Last weekend, Tony Weeks, a seasoned civil servant, found this out the hard way. Not content with prematurely stopping a fight between Vergil Ortiz and Fredrick Lawson, he decided to take to social media (Facebook) to explain the decision and try to curry favor with those who may have questioned his actions. Worse than that, however, instead of an explanation in any traditional sense, it shifted the blame to other people (particularly the Nevada State Athletic Commission), leaving Weeks on very dubious ground.
He wrote: “What the public didn’t know (was) that before the fight they did a brain scan on (Lawson), and it turned out he had an aneurysm, and they did a test again, and the same aneurysm came up. They brought in another doctor and he gave him the same explanation and he tested negative for the aneurysm, so they authorized him to fight.”
Vergil Ortiz and Fredrick Lawson (Getty Images)
If true, of course, this would explain why Weeks acted the way he did when he saw Lawson in trouble in the first round against Ortiz. He would indicate that he was a referee full of compassion and foresight, as opposed to one who panicked and, by stopping the fight when he did, showed his incompetence and/or lack of understanding.
After all, Lawson, although injured, appeared to be adequately protecting himself at the time of the arrest. He had his hands up, seemed to be doing well defensively and still saw Ortiz’s shots coming. In fact, just knowledge of Lawson’s medical history would cause anyone, referee or not, to consider him at risk in the first round of that particular fight. This, Weeks claims, is precisely what happened and therefore the reason he stopped the fight, however Golden Boy Promotions, who promoted the fight, dispute this claim.
In a statement, they said, simply, “Fredrick Lawson was cleared by a physician licensed by the Nevada State Athletic Commission to fight Saturday night.”
This was later supported by a statement from the Nevada State Athletic Commission, which read: “On January 6, 2024, a competition between Vergil Ortiz and Fredrick Lawson took place in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Contest was under the jurisdiction of the Nevada State Athletic Commission. The health and safety of unarmed combatants competing in the State are paramount to the Commission. All contestants in the event were subject to full medical examinations and were cleared by medical experts to compete without restrictions. The Commission and its Executive Director will continue its current practice of reviewing the performance of its officials during and after an event.”
Essentially, if it hadn’t been for Weeks’ behavior afterwards, there would be no reason for these statements, nor any reason to view his stoppage of Lawson as anything other than a referee panicking in the heat of battle. He is not the first referee to do so nor will he be the last.
However, what separates Weeks’ situation from others is how he has since tried to rectify his mistake, presumably because his ego took a hit from the criticism and because, like all of us, he has a platform to express his opinion and offer his version of the facts. This, in isolation, could be seen as a positive (referees are very often criticized and sometimes unfairly so), but there is a reason why the British Boxing Board of Control does not allow active officials to be interviewed and tries to protect them. of intrusion at all costs. After all, many of them are not adequately equipped to address an audience, whether on social media or elsewhere. Not only that, many of those operating today are just as hungry for attention and validation as everyone else who fights boredom by chatting with strangers online.
“When I started, it was easy,” said Marcus McDonnell, a Star-Class referee who retired last year. “Today’s kids have it very difficult. The reason is that social media is the worst thing ever, especially for our sport. When I started, if I did something wrong, the Board scolded me, but after that I didn’t hear anything again. Next week there would be a report in Boxing News and they might have had the odd letter complaining too. But that was all. Now, as soon as you step out of the ring, within two minutes it’s all over the world.
“When you go to a show and the TV people are there, they’re not your friends. They wait for something to happen and go wrong. It’s great television for them. They’re not interested in you going in there and doing a great job.
“As soon as something goes wrong, people love it. They get on their podcasts and social media and find it exciting. These people are not your friends. Of course, be nice to them, but keep to yourself.”
Whether due to backlash or a moment of clarity, Weeks eventually deleted his Facebook post and returned to his silence; the preferred state of any referee. However, one could argue that in many ways the damage had already been done and that by so recklessly posting Weeks, rather than taking out the Nevada State Athletic Commission, he had simply exposed himself. He had revealed himself as a referee who claimed to be professional but oblivious to what professionalism means, and he had revealed himself as a man incapable of accepting criticism or suffering in silence.
