Ryan Downton says LSU will be in “contempt of court” if they don’t roster the players

Why wouldn’t they roster them?

He's saying that if LSU decides against rostering Wright and Harris, he will seek to hold them in contempt due to the order issued tonight.

Basically giving LSU/Wright/Harris another layer of protection against the SEC suit and threats.

quote:

---

He's saying that if LSU decides against rostering Wright and Harris, he will seek to hold them in contempt due to the order issued tonight.

Basically giving LSU/Wright/Harris another layer of protection against the SEC suit and threats.

---

That’s what I thought, I just don’t understand the grounds behind that. From what I gathered, this would be the players taking legal action against LSU, no?

quote:

---

I’m not saying LSU wouldn’t, but if they for some reason decided not to, how would that equate to legal action being taken against LSU? I don’t understand it. And again, what about the other athletes that were a part of this that aren’t going to rostered by LSU?

---

The judge ruled that the NCAA could not stop the players from playing. He also enjoined LSU in the lawsuit which prevents LSU from preventing the players from playing.

Again, it's basically a way to protect LSU from the SEC suit.

They wouldn’t roster them to ensure they’re covered in case the Federal case doesn’t go their way on Tuesday. Harris can’t even play, so is it worth the risk just for a back up TE? Likely not, so the prudent play might be to let Tuesdays decision be made and then roster them or not based on that decision. It’s a half season suspension for Lane at stake and tens of millions of dollars in potential fines.

Oh don't worry Ryan, we are totally rostering these guys

quote:

---

That’s what I thought, I just don’t understand the grounds behind that. From what I gathered, this would be the players taking legal action against LSU, no?

---

Yes, if LSU doesn't roster them, LSU could be held in contempt according to this ruling.

They could of course appeal up the ladder, but any act that prevents the players from playing would be directly defying a court order, which results in sanctions.

As an example of a case I had recently. A party failed to give me discovery responses. I filed a Motion to Compel. The Court ruled that the other party must give me responses within 30 days. The other party failed to do so, which was a direct failure to comply with a court order. I sought sanctions, and the judge gave them to me, which resulted in the suit being thrown out and the other party being required to pay my attorney's fees.

That said, if one party fails to comply with a district court judge's order, the party seeking sanctions usually has to move for them. This would give the noncompliant party an opportunity to show cause as to why they failed to comply with the order.

If the SEC says that LSU will lose half their operating budget if they play these players or something similar for example, LSU might just eat the sanctions imposed upon them for not playing Harris/Wright. Things could get messy.

I think LSU just plays them and deals with the SEC later.

SEC and LSU will abide by the court order until they’re given a reason not to

Because A) LSU already told them they would roster them if eligible. B) the judge included LSU in his decision, basically, to treat the players as any other eligible player.

This was an avenue granted by the court not to be scared of SEC penalties.

quote:

---

Yes, if LSU doesn't roster them, LSU could be held in contempt according to this ruling.

---

This is my biggest problem with this whole mess. We not only have judges deciding rules/eligibility, we could now have them effectively forcing schools to roster certain players. That’s insane to me.