(10-12-2021 03:32 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:35 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:19 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 10:18 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 09:31 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Why would Penny be punished for playing a player whom the court mandated he play?

There are examples of injunctions against the NCAA and teams following those injunctions and the school nor the team faced any penalties for following those court orders. If this is the only issue being looked at, 2 Wins vacated from the record books...This is what will happen.

What else could they punish Penny for...Breaking TSAA rules...Really.

What was the actual court order (I don’t remember)? That he couldn’t be suspended or that he had to play? Would letting him dress but remain on the bench have been an option? I can’t see Penny doing that, but perhaps that would have satisfied both the NCAA and the court order.

Lol...Yeah that wouldn't fly in court. The courts forced Pennys hand.

No way the NCCA can hold Penny accountable for following the courts ruling unless they have proof that Penny was involved with initiating the case.

Look up the Jerry Tarkanian case...

NCAA told school to suspend him...Tark got a court order and got relief...Coached for years before the case was resolved...No punishment for the school. Using the above logic the school could have assigned him a coaching role where he didn't coach...Like assigning Wiseman a player role who didn't play.

There is precedent here...And I believe Tark was at Fresno State at the time so not a blue blood.

Not sure why everyone wants to argue this point.

So using that logic a court can force a coach to play a certain player in a game? As an attorney I'd argue Penny/AD could not ban Wiseman from attending the game or dressing out on the bench but I think its a bridge too far to say the injunction forced Penny to play him. If I were NCAA that'd be my arg anyway.

In what world can there be a court order stipulating that you have to do something, and you don't do it? The simple fact that people don't understand, is that the injunction said that the NCAA had to allow him to play. If Penny didn't play him, that would have left Memphis liable. It wasn't up to Penny to do the court or the NCAA's job for them. His job was to follow the court order.

Suing yourself through a third party to avoid liability doesn't hold up in the long run.

The independent committee is able to follow the bread crumbs to know who hooked the Wiseman family up with the attorney and who suggested what legal action.

In the end, we could see charges of conspiratory actions to circumvent the rules.

As they said it was not the crime it was the cover-up.

(10-06-2021 12:16 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 11:37 AM)tigerlands Wrote:  If we get penalized it won't be so much because of the Wiseman payment thing. It will be because the school played him when the NCAA said not to. We basically gave them the middle finger. We will pay for that. JMO.

We had no choice, there was a court order. We couldn't ignore that.

And the “we had no choice” court order was a result of a lawsuit that was encouraged to be filed by whom?

Unfortunately, the NCAA ain’t buying what you’re selling.

Good meds kicking in

(10-12-2021 05:19 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  If you've got an NBA top 5 pick on your team, then he's going to play.
To let him dress but still NOT play him would be, in effect, a suspension.
Court: Why did you suspend Wiseman, when the injunction prohibited that?
Penny: I didn't suspend him. He was on the bench, he just didn't play.
Court: Why didn't you play him?
Penny: uhhhhmmm...He's not good enough?

That’s literally a coach’s prerogative. A coach picks and chooses who plays and who doesn’t every game. If a player gets a DNP it’s not considered a suspension. The court couldn’t compel Penny to play any player. All the ruling said was he be “allowed” to play not that he had to play in the game. Again, I think it was BS but the idea that penny was forced by the ruling to insert him into the game is weak sauce. JMO

(10-12-2021 04:20 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 03:32 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:35 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:19 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 10:18 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  What was the actual court order (I don’t remember)? That he couldn’t be suspended or that he had to play? Would letting him dress but remain on the bench have been an option? I can’t see Penny doing that, but perhaps that would have satisfied both the NCAA and the court order.

Lol...Yeah that wouldn't fly in court. The courts forced Pennys hand.

No way the NCCA can hold Penny accountable for following the courts ruling unless they have proof that Penny was involved with initiating the case.

Look up the Jerry Tarkanian case...

NCAA told school to suspend him...Tark got a court order and got relief...Coached for years before the case was resolved...No punishment for the school. Using the above logic the school could have assigned him a coaching role where he didn't coach...Like assigning Wiseman a player role who didn't play.

There is precedent here...And I believe Tark was at Fresno State at the time so not a blue blood.

Not sure why everyone wants to argue this point.

So using that logic a court can force a coach to play a certain player in a game? As an attorney I'd argue Penny/AD could not ban Wiseman from attending the game or dressing out on the bench but I think its a bridge too far to say the injunction forced Penny to play him. If I were NCAA that'd be my arg anyway.

In what world can there be a court order stipulating that you have to do something, and you don't do it? The simple fact that people don't understand, is that the injunction said that the NCAA had to allow him to play. If Penny didn't play him, that would have left Memphis liable. It wasn't up to Penny to do the court or the NCAA's job for them. His job was to follow the court order.

Key word is "allow" aka dress out, be on the bench, and be available to play IMO. I think had Penny done that but didn't play him there'd be no problem. Whether a player who is available to play actually plays or not is totally up to the coach. A coach can decide not to play a player for whatever reason he/she wants unless its based on the discrimination of a protected class I suppose. The second he touched the floor was when we stepped in doo-doo. For the record, I think its complete BS that he was ruled ineligible to begin with but I can guess how NCAA will argue.

Again, it seems that you don't understand the concept of the court injunction and the concept of allow him to play. He is a player. A court injunction allowing him to play means that you can't sit him on the bench.

(10-12-2021 08:12 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 12:16 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 11:37 AM)tigerlands Wrote:  If we get penalized it won't be so much because of the Wiseman payment thing. It will be because the school played him when the NCAA said not to. We basically gave them the middle finger. We will pay for that. JMO.

We had no choice, there was a court order. We couldn't ignore that.

And the “we had no choice” court order was a result of a lawsuit that was encouraged to be filed by whom?

Unfortunately, the NCAA ain’t buying what you’re selling.

So what you are saying is that they should have ignored it. Common sense isn't buying whatever tripe you are selling.

(10-12-2021 08:34 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 05:19 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  If you've got an NBA top 5 pick on your team, then he's going to play.
To let him dress but still NOT play him would be, in effect, a suspension.
Court: Why did you suspend Wiseman, when the injunction prohibited that?
Penny: I didn't suspend him. He was on the bench, he just didn't play.
Court: Why didn't you play him?
Penny: uhhhhmmm...He's not good enough?

That’s literally a coach’s prerogative. A coach picks and chooses who plays and who doesn’t every game. If a player gets a DNP it’s not considered a suspension. The court couldn’t compel Penny to play any player. All the ruling said was he be “allowed” to play not that he had to play in the game. Again, I think it was BS but the idea that penny was forced by the ruling to insert him into the game is weak sauce. JMO

Again, you don't seem to understand. Hilarious.

(10-12-2021 06:44 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 03:32 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:35 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:19 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 10:18 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  What was the actual court order (I don’t remember)? That he couldn’t be suspended or that he had to play? Would letting him dress but remain on the bench have been an option? I can’t see Penny doing that, but perhaps that would have satisfied both the NCAA and the court order.

Lol...Yeah that wouldn't fly in court. The courts forced Pennys hand.

No way the NCCA can hold Penny accountable for following the courts ruling unless they have proof that Penny was involved with initiating the case.

Look up the Jerry Tarkanian case...

NCAA told school to suspend him...Tark got a court order and got relief...Coached for years before the case was resolved...No punishment for the school. Using the above logic the school could have assigned him a coaching role where he didn't coach...Like assigning Wiseman a player role who didn't play.

There is precedent here...And I believe Tark was at Fresno State at the time so not a blue blood.

Not sure why everyone wants to argue this point.

So using that logic a court can force a coach to play a certain player in a game? As an attorney I'd argue Penny/AD could not ban Wiseman from attending the game or dressing out on the bench but I think its a bridge too far to say the injunction forced Penny to play him. If I were NCAA that'd be my arg anyway.

In what world can there be a court order stipulating that you have to do something, and you don't do it? The simple fact that people don't understand, is that the injunction said that the NCAA had to allow him to play. If Penny didn't play him, that would have left Memphis liable. It wasn't up to Penny to do the court or the NCAA's job for them. His job was to follow the court order.

Suing yourself through a third party to avoid liability doesn't hold up in the long run.

The independent committee is able to follow the bread crumbs to know who hooked the Wiseman family up with the attorney and who suggested what legal action.

In the end, we could see charges of conspiratory actions to circumvent the rules.

As they said it was not the crime it was the cover-up.

Wow this is the winner winner on the most outlandish post of them all...

Charges of conspiracy. So, now Penny, Wiseman and company should be concerned of criminal charges...

(10-12-2021 08:34 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 05:19 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  If you've got an NBA top 5 pick on your team, then he's going to play.
To let him dress but still NOT play him would be, in effect, a suspension.
Court: Why did you suspend Wiseman, when the injunction prohibited that?
Penny: I didn't suspend him. He was on the bench, he just didn't play.
Court: Why didn't you play him?
Penny: uhhhhmmm...He's not good enough?

That’s literally a coach’s prerogative. A coach picks and chooses who plays and who doesn’t every game. If a player gets a DNP it’s not considered a suspension. The court couldn’t compel Penny to play any player. All the ruling said was he be “allowed” to play not that he had to play in the game. Again, I think it was BS but the idea that penny was forced by the ruling to insert him into the game is weak sauce. JMO

Eh, I do not know about that. I am not a lawyer but on the surface I do not agree with you.

If I fired someone at my company and a court put an injunction on me firing the person, stating I had to keep the person employed, I do not think I could then go and demote that person from CEO to janitor. While I would technically be keeping that person employed I do not think the court would see that as complying with their order and I certainly do not think I could simply use the excuse of "well, I am the boss so demoting is my right" as a reasonable justification for the demotion.

(10-12-2021 09:40 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 08:34 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 05:19 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  If you've got an NBA top 5 pick on your team, then he's going to play.
To let him dress but still NOT play him would be, in effect, a suspension.
Court: Why did you suspend Wiseman, when the injunction prohibited that?
Penny: I didn't suspend him. He was on the bench, he just didn't play.
Court: Why didn't you play him?
Penny: uhhhhmmm...He's not good enough?

That’s literally a coach’s prerogative. A coach picks and chooses who plays and who doesn’t every game. If a player gets a DNP it’s not considered a suspension. The court couldn’t compel Penny to play any player. All the ruling said was he be “allowed” to play not that he had to play in the game. Again, I think it was BS but the idea that penny was forced by the ruling to insert him into the game is weak sauce. JMO

Again, you don't seem to understand. Hilarious.

Hey, I could be totally wrong but just so I’m clear, it’s your opinion that a court can force a coach to play a particular player in a game? That’s essentially what this all boils down to if that is the crux of both side’s argument. I don’t think that decision falls within a court’s jurisdiction because the relief for a player in that position is just to transfer to a place where a coach will play him/her. In this case Penny did the math and I’m guessing was thinking the credit for backing your guy over the NCAA might pay dividends down the road with other recruits compared to the punishment. Depending on what comes down he might’ve been right or he might’ve been wrong. I hope he was right personally.

(10-13-2021 07:47 AM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 08:34 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 05:19 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  If you've got an NBA top 5 pick on your team, then he's going to play.
To let him dress but still NOT play him would be, in effect, a suspension.
Court: Why did you suspend Wiseman, when the injunction prohibited that?
Penny: I didn't suspend him. He was on the bench, he just didn't play.
Court: Why didn't you play him?
Penny: uhhhhmmm...He's not good enough?

That’s literally a coach’s prerogative. A coach picks and chooses who plays and who doesn’t every game. If a player gets a DNP it’s not considered a suspension. The court couldn’t compel Penny to play any player. All the ruling said was he be “allowed” to play not that he had to play in the game. Again, I think it was BS but the idea that penny was forced by the ruling to insert him into the game is weak sauce. JMO

Eh, I do not know about that. I am not a lawyer but on the surface I do not agree with you.

If I fired someone at my company and a court put an injunction on me firing the person, stating I had to keep the person employed, I do not think I could then go and demote that person from CEO to janitor. While I would technically be keeping that person employed I do not think the court would see that as complying with their order and I certainly do not think I could simply use the excuse of "well, I am the boss so demoting is my right" as a reasonable justification for the demotion.

Kind of apples and oranges. A coach is a dictator and I doubt you’ll find any case law (barring protected class discrimination) where a court ruled that a coach HAD to insert a player into a game. Maybe there is some out there but I’m not aware of it. Courts are loathe to get involved in any type of situation that takes place “between the lines” so to say.

(10-12-2021 09:38 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 04:20 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 03:32 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:35 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:19 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Lol...Yeah that wouldn't fly in court. The courts forced Pennys hand.

No way the NCCA can hold Penny accountable for following the courts ruling unless they have proof that Penny was involved with initiating the case.

Look up the Jerry Tarkanian case...

NCAA told school to suspend him...Tark got a court order and got relief...Coached for years before the case was resolved...No punishment for the school. Using the above logic the school could have assigned him a coaching role where he didn't coach...Like assigning Wiseman a player role who didn't play.

There is precedent here...And I believe Tark was at Fresno State at the time so not a blue blood.

Not sure why everyone wants to argue this point.

So using that logic a court can force a coach to play a certain player in a game? As an attorney I'd argue Penny/AD could not ban Wiseman from attending the game or dressing out on the bench but I think its a bridge too far to say the injunction forced Penny to play him. If I were NCAA that'd be my arg anyway.

In what world can there be a court order stipulating that you have to do something, and you don't do it? The simple fact that people don't understand, is that the injunction said that the NCAA had to allow him to play. If Penny didn't play him, that would have left Memphis liable. It wasn't up to Penny to do the court or the NCAA's job for them. His job was to follow the court order.

Key word is "allow" aka dress out, be on the bench, and be available to play IMO. I think had Penny done that but didn't play him there'd be no problem. Whether a player who is available to play actually plays or not is totally up to the coach. A coach can decide not to play a player for whatever reason he/she wants unless its based on the discrimination of a protected class I suppose. The second he touched the floor was when we stepped in doo-doo. For the record, I think its complete BS that he was ruled ineligible to begin with but I can guess how NCAA will argue.

Again, it seems that you don't understand the concept of the court injunction and the concept of allow him to play. He is a player. A court injunction allowing him to play means that you can't sit him on the bench.

By that logic could a court also require him to play "x" amount of minutes? I just don't think any court's jurisdiction covers any type of in-game decision like who plays and who doesn't. But hey, agree to disagree. I recently left litigation work for transactional work so I might be itching to argue for argument's sake. haha

(10-13-2021 08:57 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 09:38 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 04:20 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 03:32 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:35 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  So using that logic a court can force a coach to play a certain player in a game? As an attorney I'd argue Penny/AD could not ban Wiseman from attending the game or dressing out on the bench but I think its a bridge too far to say the injunction forced Penny to play him. If I were NCAA that'd be my arg anyway.

In what world can there be a court order stipulating that you have to do something, and you don't do it? The simple fact that people don't understand, is that the injunction said that the NCAA had to allow him to play. If Penny didn't play him, that would have left Memphis liable. It wasn't up to Penny to do the court or the NCAA's job for them. His job was to follow the court order.

Key word is "allow" aka dress out, be on the bench, and be available to play IMO. I think had Penny done that but didn't play him there'd be no problem. Whether a player who is available to play actually plays or not is totally up to the coach. A coach can decide not to play a player for whatever reason he/she wants unless its based on the discrimination of a protected class I suppose. The second he touched the floor was when we stepped in doo-doo. For the record, I think its complete BS that he was ruled ineligible to begin with but I can guess how NCAA will argue.

Again, it seems that you don't understand the concept of the court injunction and the concept of allow him to play. He is a player. A court injunction allowing him to play means that you can't sit him on the bench.

By that logic could a court also require him to play "x" amount of minutes? I just don't think any court's jurisdiction covers any type of in-game decision like who plays and who doesn't. But hey, agree to disagree. I recently left litigation work for transactional work so I might be itching to argue for argument's sake. haha

The court's injunction would require the coach to treat the player as if he had not been declared ineligible. If he is not ineligible, as the best player in the gym, he is going to play. If you don't play him, then you are, in practice, suspending him - which the court disallowed.

But again, I doubt the NCAA rules this way - as they do their own thing. But in a court of law, I would think the Tigers have a strong case that allowed him to be played during the TRO or injunction (can't recall which it was).

(10-13-2021 07:42 AM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 06:44 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 03:32 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:35 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 01:19 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Lol...Yeah that wouldn't fly in court. The courts forced Pennys hand.

No way the NCCA can hold Penny accountable for following the courts ruling unless they have proof that Penny was involved with initiating the case.

Look up the Jerry Tarkanian case...

NCAA told school to suspend him...Tark got a court order and got relief...Coached for years before the case was resolved...No punishment for the school. Using the above logic the school could have assigned him a coaching role where he didn't coach...Like assigning Wiseman a player role who didn't play.

There is precedent here...And I believe Tark was at Fresno State at the time so not a blue blood.

Not sure why everyone wants to argue this point.

So using that logic a court can force a coach to play a certain player in a game? As an attorney I'd argue Penny/AD could not ban Wiseman from attending the game or dressing out on the bench but I think its a bridge too far to say the injunction forced Penny to play him. If I were NCAA that'd be my arg anyway.

In what world can there be a court order stipulating that you have to do something, and you don't do it? The simple fact that people don't understand, is that the injunction said that the NCAA had to allow him to play. If Penny didn't play him, that would have left Memphis liable. It wasn't up to Penny to do the court or the NCAA's job for them. His job was to follow the court order.

Suing yourself through a third party to avoid liability doesn't hold up in the long run.

The independent committee is able to follow the bread crumbs to know who hooked the Wiseman family up with the attorney and who suggested what legal action.

In the end, we could see charges of conspiratory actions to circumvent the rules.

As they said it was not the crime it was the cover-up.

Wow this is the winner winner on the most outlandish post of them all...

Charges of conspiracy. So, now Penny, Wiseman and company should be concerned of criminal charges...

I blame Law & Order.

(10-12-2021 09:39 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 08:12 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 12:16 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 11:37 AM)tigerlands Wrote:  If we get penalized it won't be so much because of the Wiseman payment thing. It will be because the school played him when the NCAA said not to. We basically gave them the middle finger. We will pay for that. JMO.

We had no choice, there was a court order. We couldn't ignore that.

And the “we had no choice” court order was a result of a lawsuit that was encouraged to be filed by whom?

Unfortunately, the NCAA ain’t buying what you’re selling.

So what you are saying is that they should have ignored it. Common sense isn't buying whatever tripe you are selling.

I was enjoying the banter until I saw two words that dont go with any of these arguments , Common Sense

How a Little-Known NCAA Rule Shuts Athletes Out of the Legal System

excerpt - Buried in the NCAA's voluminous rulebook, the Restitution Rule is a unique weapon in the association's arsenal, one specifically designed to make the organization above the law. In a nutshell, it works like this: If any college athlete ruled ineligible by the NCAA is allowed to participate thanks to a court order, and said order is later vacated, stayed, or reversed, then the association can force the athlete's school to forfeit victories, surrender television revenue, pay fines, and endure postseason bans.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/8qy533/h...gal-system

James Wiseman, the NCAA, and State Action

excerpt -
The NCAA’s largely unilateral power to discipline Wiseman comes from two aspects of the organization’s legal makeup. First, the Supreme Court held in National College Athletic Association v. Tarkanian that the NCAA is not a state actor under the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore not bound by constitutional due process requirements. Second, the NCAA, rather than adopting bylaws granting athletes the same due process protections that would be mandated by the Constitution, has chosen instead to adopt a “restitution rule,” which permits the NCAA to punish a university who permits an athlete to play during a court-ordered preliminary injunction that later gets reversed or vacated. This means that if a court were to enjoin Wiseman’s suspension pending the outcome of a lawsuit, Memphis risks significant punishment if it allows Wiseman to play during the injunction.

https://harvardcrcl.org/james-wiseman-th...te-action/

(10-13-2021 09:51 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(10-13-2021 08:57 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 09:38 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 04:20 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 03:32 PM)Stammers Wrote:  In what world can there be a court order stipulating that you have to do something, and you don't do it? The simple fact that people don't understand, is that the injunction said that the NCAA had to allow him to play. If Penny didn't play him, that would have left Memphis liable. It wasn't up to Penny to do the court or the NCAA's job for them. His job was to follow the court order.

Key word is "allow" aka dress out, be on the bench, and be available to play IMO. I think had Penny done that but didn't play him there'd be no problem. Whether a player who is available to play actually plays or not is totally up to the coach. A coach can decide not to play a player for whatever reason he/she wants unless its based on the discrimination of a protected class I suppose. The second he touched the floor was when we stepped in doo-doo. For the record, I think its complete BS that he was ruled ineligible to begin with but I can guess how NCAA will argue.

Again, it seems that you don't understand the concept of the court injunction and the concept of allow him to play. He is a player. A court injunction allowing him to play means that you can't sit him on the bench.

By that logic could a court also require him to play "x" amount of minutes? I just don't think any court's jurisdiction covers any type of in-game decision like who plays and who doesn't. But hey, agree to disagree. I recently left litigation work for transactional work so I might be itching to argue for argument's sake. haha

The court's injunction would require the coach to treat the player as if he had not been declared ineligible. If he is not ineligible, as the best player in the gym, he is going to play. If you don't play him, then you are, in practice, suspending him - which the court disallowed.

But again, I doubt the NCAA rules this way - as they do their own thing. But in a court of law, I would think the Tigers have a strong case that allowed him to be played during the TRO or injunction (can't recall which it was).

Just for argument's sake I'll counter that talent is not the only reason why a player plays or doesn't play in a game. Its among a number of factors that a coach must weigh when making that decision. I agree with you though that the NCAA is going to do whatever the hell they want to do and in this case due to the IARP's setup there's no appeal process, right?

(10-13-2021 08:43 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-13-2021 07:47 AM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 08:34 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 05:19 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  If you've got an NBA top 5 pick on your team, then he's going to play.
To let him dress but still NOT play him would be, in effect, a suspension.
Court: Why did you suspend Wiseman, when the injunction prohibited that?
Penny: I didn't suspend him. He was on the bench, he just didn't play.
Court: Why didn't you play him?
Penny: uhhhhmmm...He's not good enough?

That’s literally a coach’s prerogative. A coach picks and chooses who plays and who doesn’t every game. If a player gets a DNP it’s not considered a suspension. The court couldn’t compel Penny to play any player. All the ruling said was he be “allowed” to play not that he had to play in the game. Again, I think it was BS but the idea that penny was forced by the ruling to insert him into the game is weak sauce. JMO

Eh, I do not know about that. I am not a lawyer but on the surface I do not agree with you.

If I fired someone at my company and a court put an injunction on me firing the person, stating I had to keep the person employed, I do not think I could then go and demote that person from CEO to janitor. While I would technically be keeping that person employed I do not think the court would see that as complying with their order and I certainly do not think I could simply use the excuse of "well, I am the boss so demoting is my right" as a reasonable justification for the demotion.

Kind of apples and oranges. A coach is a dictator and I doubt you’ll find any case law (barring protected class discrimination) where a court ruled that a coach HAD to insert a player into a game. Maybe there is some out there but I’m not aware of it. Courts are loathe to get involved in any type of situation that takes place “between the lines” so to say.

Maybe, I get they are not exact parallels but in this instance there is not really any way to draw an exact parallel for the sake of a real world comparison. But as the sole owner of my business I am just as much of a dictator as the head coach of a college basketball team...

Like say, I am not a lawyer and it sounds like the ruling by the IARP is pretty much made so we will see how it all shakes out.

(10-13-2021 12:00 PM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(10-13-2021 08:43 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-13-2021 07:47 AM)SeñorTiger Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 08:34 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 05:19 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  If you've got an NBA top 5 pick on your team, then he's going to play.
To let him dress but still NOT play him would be, in effect, a suspension.
Court: Why did you suspend Wiseman, when the injunction prohibited that?
Penny: I didn't suspend him. He was on the bench, he just didn't play.
Court: Why didn't you play him?
Penny: uhhhhmmm...He's not good enough?

That’s literally a coach’s prerogative. A coach picks and chooses who plays and who doesn’t every game. If a player gets a DNP it’s not considered a suspension. The court couldn’t compel Penny to play any player. All the ruling said was he be “allowed” to play not that he had to play in the game. Again, I think it was BS but the idea that penny was forced by the ruling to insert him into the game is weak sauce. JMO

Eh, I do not know about that. I am not a lawyer but on the surface I do not agree with you.

If I fired someone at my company and a court put an injunction on me firing the person, stating I had to keep the person employed, I do not think I could then go and demote that person from CEO to janitor. While I would technically be keeping that person employed I do not think the court would see that as complying with their order and I certainly do not think I could simply use the excuse of "well, I am the boss so demoting is my right" as a reasonable justification for the demotion.

Kind of apples and oranges. A coach is a dictator and I doubt you’ll find any case law (barring protected class discrimination) where a court ruled that a coach HAD to insert a player into a game. Maybe there is some out there but I’m not aware of it. Courts are loathe to get involved in any type of situation that takes place “between the lines” so to say.

Maybe, I get they are not exact parallels but in this instance there is not really any way to draw an exact parallel for the sake of a real world comparison. But as the sole owner of my business I am just as much of a dictator as the head coach of a college basketball team...

Like say, I am not a lawyer and it sounds like the ruling by the IARP is pretty much made so we will see how it all shakes out.

I get that and I'd probably argue a closer analogy in your situation would be like, you have to pick 5 of your 15 employees to work on an inner-office taskforce. If a court has said you have to employ a person I don't think that means you are forced to put them in certain situations, like working on the taskforce, within their job. You're right though, its hard to find a parallel that works perfectly. Think at this point if its anything that's not a postseason ban you take it and run.