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?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Judges rule in cases brought before them, even odd balls brought by pro se plaintiffs.Yeah, how this even got into court is incomprehensible.
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.
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 downhttp://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/...-to-Courtroom-328119821.html?device=phone&c=y
Thoughts? Anyone go to the game where he was ejected?
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 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.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.
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.
I am viewing on a tablet and am questioning what I am not seeing what others are. What was illegal?
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?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?
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.
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.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.
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.