|
From what I can gather, the crux of the issue is the Oklahoma State Assn's term, "regularly scheduled game," or a term very similar to that (regular = regularly; etc.). In other words, the team with the kicking QB is saying, "yes, he's suspended, but only for regularly scheduled, i.e. regular season, games. However, this is wrong. If they had intended "regular season" they would have used that term.
To me, an attorney, this is a no-brainer. A playoff game IS a regularly scheduled game, assuming there are time periods (i.e. days) set out for the playoff round and the brackets are formed -- whether they are published or not. Does anyone have any information that would suggest Oklahoma makes things up, playoff wise, as they go along? Besides, courts are generally big in not reading legislative intent into laws where the terms used is unambiguous. Here, it clearly is.
I'm also extremely concerned with a District Court judge getting involved in a matter over which he has no real jurisdiction. There is no constitutional (Federal or State) right that I'm aware of in play here, so whatever athletic rules there are, the assn is free to enforce them as they see fit. The US Supreme Court set an extremely dangerous precedent with the Casey Martin case, effectively telling sports leagues that the courts can and will litigate disputes. Which is entirely inconsistent with the courts' normal practice of weeding cases out on jurisdiction to clear their docket.
I can forsee a time in my life when one of my (or your) pass interference calls is litigated. I sincerely hope the OSC b!tch slaps the district judge, but I'm not terribly optimistic.
[Edited by Texas Aggie on Nov 30th, 2005 at 11:50 PM]
|