http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/...-to-Courtroom-328119821.html?device=phone&c=y
Thoughts? Anyone go to the game where he was ejected?
Thoughts? Anyone go to the game where he was ejected?
Football player, parents, board member and an ejection.
- Thread starter newAD
- Start date
Judges rule in cases brought before them, even odd balls brought by pro se plaintiffs.
I'm sorta stumped on the federal question involved (civil right of some sort, I'd guess) but the federal judge saw jurisdiction and issued what would appear to be a relatively easy order.
I know this situation extremely well officiating in the metro. The crew is one of the best in the state with 4 of them being college officials as well. I've watched it over and over from 4 angles and it was a correct call. The kid who was hit was defenseless and not in a position to make a football play. Add in 2 players stood over top of him and taunted him, plus shoved him back into the ground as he was trying to get up.
But mom says it was legal.Who is the dad? Isn't he the one who was beaten for not leaving the hospital when told and sued for it? Thought I saw this story on TV and recognized him as such.
Seems like the player is in the wrong and this is to avoid accountability for his actions.
Seems like the player is in the wrong and this is to avoid accountability for his actions.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
I guess with how football is expected to be played now, that is the rule. 20 years ago none of the high school teams would be able to field a team. That was the highlight to get some snowflake running with his head down
Right, I guess the point is that if a federal judge saw jurisdiction here, where does it stop? They'll be arguing balls and strikes in federal court.
Parents filed the lawsuit claiming federal civil.rights violations.
It was granted emergency hearing today as Omaha Central is playing right now, and the parents wanted their son to play.
There is a link to the lawsuit on WOWT. Pretty weak IMO.
I've got to believe that HS football officials do not take ejecting a kid lightly, and don't do it unless they are 100% sure in their minds.
It was granted emergency hearing today as Omaha Central is playing right now, and the parents wanted their son to play.
There is a link to the lawsuit on WOWT. Pretty weak IMO.
I've got to believe that HS football officials do not take ejecting a kid lightly, and don't do it unless they are 100% sure in their minds.
I think you're missing my point about (subject matter) jurisdiction, which is narrow in federal court. Regardless, the judge has no choice but to rule in a well-pled case, even if it has no chance of winning; the gate-keeper jurisdictional issue is separate from the substance of the due process or civil rights claim. Unless the parents here are attorneys I'd guess they had some degree of silent assistance from an attorney.
But thankfully more frivolous cases are not filed than those that are.
Exactly. This would have had to be heard eventually. Is was due to the time frame issue that it was given emergency hearing due to the parents seeking to have him be able to play tonight.
I'm sure the Federal judge wasn't seeking this out.
Some.of the argument has some interesting points such as no appeal process. However as was argued on the other side, sports are voluntary, and you are expected to abide by the rules. Also, this isn't the NFL with a collective bargaining agreement. Last I checked no one has a civil right in this country to play football.
I am viewing on a tablet and am questioning what I am not seeing what others are. What was illegal?
I'm pretty sure this is why:
2015 Points of Emphasis
Based on what was said in the preseason rules meetings, I've been surprised that I haven't seen more of these calls so far this year.
Thanks. I guess I'm too old school to see it. The blocker has his back to the play and is protecting the ball carrier. Clearly he laid the kid out but the kid on defense surely had vision, and you see times where someone makes the tackle from the backside. So what gives? What supports this?
This Point of Emphasis has been talked about for 4 years now at the high school level. Risk minimization was the #1 topic discussed in camps and in preseason meetings.
The news angle doesn't tell the entire story the play. The wide angles and endzone angles from the game film do.
- The player who was hit was 15 yards away from the play and was in no way to make a play, nor defending himself.
- 4 other Prep players were closer to the ball carrier. It appeared he didn't hit the first guy he could have but went after a second guy trailing the play.
- This was on a 4th down interception with less than a min to go in the game, which won the game for Central. Central's ball carrier was going to go down on his own.
Additionally - my opinion. The kid who was hit and who was called for the foul were lined up against each other all night. As the interception and return developed, it appeared the it was a redemption or seek and destroy type of hit.
From the Points of Emphasis on ruling on personal foul/unnecessary roughness or excessive contact:
Does a player have a legitimate chance to make a play? – No <--- This alone makes it a penalty.
Does the player receive a blindside hit? – Yes
Was the contact unnecessary or excessive? – Yes
Ruling: Foul for personal foul/unnecessary roughness or excessive contact.
I didn't take the time to read the pleadings. But my instinct is that the federal question is 14th Amendment due process. No appeals process leads to the state depriving the kid of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law, yada yada. The Judge likely knew how he was going to rule and wanted to get an opinion out before the game.
It MIGHT be the correct call based on the point of emphasis...I will just say that's the way football has become. Can't say I agree with a lot of the rules.
If they can't figure out how to reduce injuries/concussions, it won't matter much what the rules are because you won't see a lot parents letting their kids play.
