Another judge with nothing better to do...

[Rich]

County Supreme Court Judge overturns Section V referee call | WHAM

[bob jenkins]

As I see this, and it's hard to tell from the video, the same girl committed a personal foul followed by a technical foul on two separate (nearly consecutive) possessions.

Interesting that most of the comments are supportive of the call -- rare.

[Randa16]

This is going to start a bad precedent of coaches and schools suing over calls they don’t like

[so cal lurker]

For those that don't know, in NY the Supreme Court is the lower court, not the higher court. So this is a decision of a trial judge.

And the article is horrible, as it doesn't explain anything about the basis for the court order or even what the actual order was. I would hazard a guess that the order was a preliminary injunction in which the court did not make a final decision on the merits of the claim, but concluded that the player would be irreparably harmed if she was not allowed to play while the court proceedings progressed. That would have the effect of letting her play, but not of being a final judgment on the merits. It would also mean that the suspension doesn't go away--she would still have to serve the suspension unless she ultimately prevails. But the article doesn't bother with the details as they just want the drama of the court intervening (which I agree is absurd on so many levels. . . ).

[LRZ]

Years and years ago, when I was first barred, I clerked for a trial judge--one of the two smartest, most courageous jurists I have ever know--who was assigned a similar case. After hearing from the lawyers, he determined that the matter was not judiciable--i.e., not a matter for the courts to intervene--and denied the preliminary injunction.

[ltllng]

2 different girls in the video.

#3 is disqualified for her 4th and 5th foul.

#5 is ejected for what the referee must have seen as a kick.

Here is the link for the full video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDRYJlSCSzc&t=284s

[scrounge]

This is an outrageous decision, even if only a prelim injunction. There's no real irreparable harm here, no reason for the court to assert jurisdiction.

I'm sure this young girl will grow up well-adjusted and able to handle the normal frustrations of life after 18 years with these hyper-helicopter parents.

[Kelvin green]

The parents have more dollars than sense. The parents have told this girl that bad behavior is ok. That rules don’t matter, that there are consequences to the actions. The one administrator for Red Creek... players have to have due process prior to a suspension? Really I wonder where this guy got his law degree and studied the 5th and 14th Amendment.... but I guess the judge buy into that ridiculous theory too....

Does this judge understand what he has opened up? Of course the Court of Appeals in New York will never let it stand but the layer made his money and the player LOST in the next game.

Yeah right let’s allow any call that that someone disagrees with ... look the courts are overcrowded as it is and then add this nonsense. Maybe the New York Judge should just look to a couple of previous cases

Alan Goldberger - Why Courts Should Not Overturn a Referee's Call

I have not researched every case but standard American law is that judges don’t intervene and I just don’t se how she has any chance to win on the merits... but hey, I’m not licensed in New York...

[Kelvin green]

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....?????

[so cal lurker]

From the articles I saw, it was garbled as to whether it was a New York Supreme Court judge (the state trial court), or a lower level judge--I saw both asserted in articles.

While I think there is no chance an appellate court would uphold this nonsense--overturning a judgment call in court!?!?!?--I doubt it will get there. She got to play the playoff game; she lost. The order had all the appearances of a TRO or preliminary injunction. If she drops the matter now, presumably she will serve her suspension in the first game of next year. Is her family likely to continue spending money to make her eligible for that game? I doubt it. So there is nothing to appeal and if hte association tried to appeal it would likely be dismissed as moot. (Unless, I think, the high school association wants to extend the litigation by arguing that the appellate court can hear their moot challenge under the mushy standard of likely to be repeated yet evade review. But is the association going to want to spend money chasing that?)

[BryanV21]

I only watched the video once, but I think the official called an intentional foul for dead ball contact (at least he gave the IF signal). Shouldn't it have been a technical?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I only watched the video once, but I think the official called an intentional foul for dead ball contact (at least he gave the IF signal). Shouldn't it have been a technical?

Officials did a poor of signaling and communicating what they had on both plays.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Officials did a poor of signaling and communicating what they had on both plays.

Understatement. Didn't help them, either.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[BillyMac]

[so cal lurker]

In another article (https://www.democratandchronicle.co....saa/401340002/), the school superintendent is quoted:

"A disqualifying foul has to be violent, severe or cause injury," Sholes said, "and I didn’t see any of those. I could make a case she was protecting herself from the girl falling on her."

What's the actual standard for a dead ball action being a DQ?