View Single Post
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 28, 2010, 03:52pm
Judtech Judtech is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Not where I was previously
Posts: 1,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
And has it been definitively stated by anyone in authority that this law would ever apply in this situation? Reasonably accommodated. One of the mothers of all broad terms. And is missing a consolation game undue hardship? To ask to change the schedule of a tournament, which was made probably a year in advance, to accommodate any one group for any reason sounds like a lot to ask to me.
Thus the reason for lawyers. If by switching times with the game immediately after their game who would be harmed? For instance, would playing at 5 instead of 7 harm those players? There would be no additional burden for those two teams. No extra travel expense etc. For those playing at 5 to play at 7 the benefits would outway any additional "burden". While those teams may return home a few hours later, they would still have the opportunity to participate in the state tournament and reap any rewards that would entail.
Of course by the time you filed all the injunctions, temporary retraining orders etc, the tournament would be over and it would all be a big distraction.
Reply With Quote