|
Not to mention the fact that most officials here are in agreement that only one of the fouls in question should have been called flagrant, and that foul wasn't even committed by #34. It was #42.
So, even if you call an intentional on #34 for play #1 and #3 (which almost everyone here is in agreement with), he's still eligible to play in the game.
So how are you going to argue that the officials are liable for play #5, which was committed by #34, and, in our hypothetical, injured the opposing player.
What would calling intentional fouls on #1 and #3 have done more than calling common fouls in those situations?
The answer is: not a whole lot probably, given the way #34 was playing the game.
And that's not even close to grounds to win a civil lawsuit.
|