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