|
Maybe this judge should have heeded the words of a Federal Judge in Texas.... this was from a case when an umpire refused to play a game in Houston because of bad field conditions
Fortunately, the legal question is: Is it manifestly arbitrary for a reasonable person to object to the playing conditions as they existed. The answer is that several apparently reasonable people objected, and the one person who had the responsibility for making the decision decided that he objected. An erroneous call of pass interference can cost a team the game and the stadium the opportunity for play-off games. Without evidence of the referee's corruption by lucre or malice, an error is an error.
Of course the Georgia Supreme Court got it right in 1981
...we held that a high school football player has no right to participate in interscholastic sports and has no protectable property interest which would give rise to a due process claim. Pretermitting the question of "state action" which is the threshold of the 14th Amendment, we held that Smith was not denied equal protection by the rule of GHSA there involved. ...We now go further and hold that courts of equity in this state are without authority to review decisions of football referees because those decisions do not present judicial controversies.
Given the case law.... I wonder if this judge had recently been to a state where whacky weed is no legal....?????
|