By Brittany N. Anderson, MS & Michael S. Carroll, PhD
During the 2019 Virginia High School League (VHSL) 6A high school football state championship game, there were two key officiating calls in the game that went against the losing team. The losing team would have scored (and actually did), but there was no instant replay to verify it. As a result, the final score of the game was 14-13. Had the use of instant replay been available, the losing school would have scored at least 12 more points. The losing school has contemplated filing a lawsuit against the VHSL related to these key missed calls; however, as of now, they have not done so.
While the school is in the process of determining whether to pursue litigation, there are several preceding cases that can be illustrative in determining likely success. Unfortunately, officials’ errors on the field have occurred far too often across the country. In 2014, Frederick Douglass High School of Oklahoma City sued the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association (OSSAA) because the team lost a 2014 3-A playoff game 20-19 to Locust Grove High School, due to officials incorrectly enforcing a penalty against them after they scored a touchdown. While the OSSAA apologized and acknowledged that there had been a mistake in the rules application, the association would not intervene in the outcome of the game. As a result, Douglass filed a lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) forbidding Locust Grove from advancing to the next round of playoffs. Douglass also asked for the final 1:04 of the game to be played (after their touchdown was scored). The state trial judge granted their wish and issued the TRO, forbidding Locust Grove from advancing to the next round; however, the state district court overturned that ruling and determined that the courts should not meddle in the outcome of high school football games because there would potentially be a flood of litigation that would interfere with more serious legal issues. This falls in line with courts’ historical reluctance to get involved in the matters of voluntary athletic associations, absent any clear fraud or other wrongdoing.
In 2016, Fenwick High School, a private Catholic school in Oak Park, Illinois, challenged the outcome of their Class 7A semifinal game. Near the end of regulation, Fenwick was clinging to a three-point lead with possession on their own 15-yard line. However, with four seconds left in the game and on fourth down, the Fenwick quarterback threw a deep pass that was ruled as intentional grounding, resulting in a penalty. While the intentional grounding was a penalty, time had expired and therefore the game should have ended. However, the officiating crew awarded Plainfield North one play with zero time on the clock, which allowed them to kick a game tying field goal. As a result, the game went into overtime, with Plainfield North ultimately winning the game over Fenwick. After the outcome of the game, the Illinois High School Association (IHSA) acknowledged its error on awarding Plainfield North one last play. However, it stated the decisions of the game are final and non-reviewable. Since the IHSA decided not to change the outcome of the game, Fenwick pursued litigation against the IHSA by asking a judge to overturn the result of the game. Fenwick wanted the judge to issue a TRO and declare the game to have ended when the clock reached zero in the fourth quarter. In the ruling, the judge cited the Frederick Douglass v. OSSAA (2014), case in which the court declined to intervene in officiating calls as it would bring forth “meritless litigation due to disagreement with or disdain for officials.” Therefore, the score is final once a referee declares the contest to be over.
Although courts traditionally steer clear from meddling in the outcome of high school football games, if teams are able to demonstrate negligent officiating, would courts possibly reconsider their stance on this issue? While jurisdictions differ as to the appropriate standard of care placed on referees, numerous states afford their officials the protection of qualified tort immunity with respect to a civil lawsuit. Qualified immunity jurisdiction requires a showing beyond simple negligence, showing either recklessness or gross negligence, before the court will recognize a claim for negligent officiating. Regardless of the standard of care, plaintiffs must demonstrate: duty, breach, causation, and harm. It is the duty of the officials to know the rules and understand how to apply them in the game. If this duty is breached, the non-breaching party can sue the party that breached their duty. However, the next step in proving causation tends to be difficult for plaintiffs to prove. As a result, the plays occurring in the last seconds of a game tend to be the only plays eligible to satisfy causation. Lastly, harm could be demonstrated when a team fails to make the playoffs or advance in the postseason.
While most courts have refused to intervene in officials’ on-field decisions, the increasing use of instant replay, which allows officials a “safety net” to review critical calls, may cause courts to reconsider their position in the future. Instant replay’s use is diverse, and its reason for use has changed over time. Initially it was used to help correct the effect of incorrect applications of in-game rules, not to provide a foundation for finding sports officials liable for incorrect judgment calls during the game. Since its initiation, there has been an influx of litigation against officials’ associations for their failure to use instant replay, which resulted in the wrong team winning. As a result of their errors, these associations need to have a mechanism to overturn game results in cases of clear and definitive error. However, to date, officials’ associations have yet to overturn a game outcome that resulted in their errors, which has resulted in litigation pursued by the affected schools. They want the courts to assist them in overturning the outcome of the game so that they have the opportunity to continue post-season play. The courts’ involvement would make Douglass High School, Fenwick High School, and the high school in Virginia feel whole knowing that the courts are taking a more thorough look at the outcomes of their games, which were decided by officials’ error.
Instant replay is so important in post-season play, especially the state championship game. The addition of instant replay would reduce the occurrence of human error which would ensure a more accurate game being called. This would then reduce the potential for litigation against state officials’ associations going forward. The use of instant replay in the playoffs, especially the state championship, would help the right school to be crowned champion. While case law on the ability of courts to intervene in football game outcomes is sparse, the increased use of instant replay in football will not only help the officials get the call right the first time, but it will allow courts to hold officials to higher duty of care.
References
Cadkin, J. (2008). Sports official liability: Can I sue if the ref missed a call? University of
Denver Sport and Entertainment Law Journal, 5, 51-63. Cassell, P. (2014, December 10). Should an Oklahoma judge order a high school football game
replayed? The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://washingtonpost.com/news/volokh -conspiracy/wp/2014/12/10/should-an-oklahoma-judge-order-a-high-school-football- game-replayed/ Green, L. (2015, February 10). School legal challenges to state association rulings. The
National Federation of State High School Associations. Retrieved from https://www.nfhs.org/articles/school-legal-challenges-to-state-association-rulings/ O’Connell, P. M., & Keilman, J. ( 2016, November 23). Fenwick football fiasco raises issues of sportsmanship, ethics. The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/high-school/ct-fenwick-football-lawsuit-met-20161122-story.html
Brittany N. Anderson is a first year Sport Management doctoral student at Troy University. Her research interests are related to leadership, diversity, community relations, and player development. She is currently working as a Health/Physical Education teacher, Recreation Leader, and a football/softball official. She lives in Chesapeake, VA.
Michael S. Carroll is an Associate Professor of Sport Management at Troy University specializing in research related to sport law and risk management in sport and recreation. He has published over 30 articles and delivered over 50 presentations at professional conferences. He lives in Orlando, FL.
