Matter of Rodriguez v New York State Pub. High School Athletic Assn. Inc.
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 6, 2005
Supreme Court, Albany County
In the Matter of Frank C. Rodriguez, an Infant, Appearing by his Parents and Guardians, FRANK and ALLISON RODRIGUEZ, and THE HAVERSTRAW STONY-POINT CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, known as THE NORTH ROCKLAND CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioners,
against
The New York State Public High School Athletic Association, Inc., STATE WRESTLING PROTEST COMMITTEE, and PAUL FLORIO, Respondents.
2772-05
Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, LLP
Attorneys for Petitioners
One Commerce Plaza
Albany, NY 12260
John J. Henry, Esq. and Sarah K. Delaney, Esq. (of counsel)
Nixon Peabody, LLP
Attorneys for Respondents
Omni Plaza, Suite 900
30 South Pearl Street
Albany, NY 12207
Sheri L. Moreno, Esq. (of counsel)
Thomas J. Spargo, J.
Petitioners request a judgment pursuant to CPLR Article 78 annulling a determination of respondent State Wrestling Protest Committee, made on March 5, 2005, which denied petitioners' protest of a referee's decision to assess a penalty against the petitioner high school wrestler during the course of a State Wrestling Championship Tournament match. [*2]
The petition is brought by the parents of the wrestler (Rodriguez), who was a 12th grade student at the time, and by the school district where Rodriguez attended high school.
The respondent New York State Public High School Athletic Association, Inc. (NYSPHSAA) is a not-for profit corporation which organizes and conducts high school interscholastic athletic events, including the State Wrestling Championship in which Rodriguez was a competitor. The respondent State Wrestling Protest Committee (Protest Committee) is a three person panel appointed by the NYSPHSAA to review and determine on-site protests arising during the tournament. Respondent Paul Florio (Florio) is a high school wrestler who was the opponent of Rodriguez in the final match of the 135 pound division of the championship tournament.
The NYSPHSAA has established a State Wrestling Committee which oversees the rules, regulations and standards pertaining to high school wrestling. The State Wrestling Committee has adopted the National Federation of State High School Associations Rule Book (National Rules) except as modified by the New York State Interpretation Handbook (State Rules) as the official rules of high school wrestling. The State Wrestling Committee relies upon the National Federation of State High School Associations Wrestling Case Book and Manual (Case Book and Manual) for guidance as to the interpretation and application of the official rules.
Each year, the State Wrestling Committee establishes a Protest Committee to hear appeals at the site of the State Wrestling Championship Tournament and its three members are the Coordinator of the State Wrestling Committee, the State Rules Interpreter and the President of the New York State Wrestling Officials Association.
On March 5, 2005, Rodriguez and Florio wrestled in the final match of the 135 pound division at the State Wrestling Championship Tournament. At the end of the third and final period of the match, Rodriguez led Florio by a score of 7-6. After the referee stopped the match, but prior to the handshake between the wrestlers, Rodriguez threw his headgear 20 to 30 feet into the air. The head gear landed near the scorer's table. The referee then directed the wrestlers to shake hands and declared Rodriguez the winner by raising his hand.
The referee proceeded to the scorer's table where he was told by the assistant referee that Rodriguez had thrown his headgear and must be penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct. The referee and assistant referee summoned the State Rules Interpreter, Steven Dalberth (Dalberth), who was observing the match, for a rule interpretation.
The referee asked Dalberth whether throwing headgear is unsportsmanlike conduct if it is thrown in celebration and [*3]Dalberth advised the referee that the rule did not distinguish between throwing headgear in jubilation or anger. The referee then asked Dalberth whether the penalty points should be assessed as match points or team points. Dalberth stated that the penalty points were match points because the unsportsmanlike conduct occurred prior to the end-of match procedure, which under State Rules includes the handshake.
The referee brought both wrestlers back to the center of the mat and penalized Rodriguez two points for unsportsmanlike conduct, making the score 8-7 in favor of Florio. The referee then raised Florio's hand and declared him the winner.
Rodriguez' coach immediately protested the decision, claiming that the conduct of Rodriguez did not constitute unsportsmanlike conduct since the headgear was thrown in jubilation and that it would be unfair for Rodriguez to lose the state championship for throwing his headgear.
The Protest Committee considered the appeal but upheld the determination of the referee that Rodriguez had engaged in unsportsmanlike conduct during the match and was subject to a two point penalty. Rodriguez' coach then argued that, under the National Rules, because Florio had already left the mat area the "scoring error" of initially declaring Rodriguez the winner could not be corrected. The Protest Committee also denied this appeal.
"[T]he courts should not interfere with the internal affairs, proceedings, rules and orders of a high school athletic association unless there is evidence of acts which are arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion" (Matter of Gerard v Section III of NY State Pub. High School Athletic Assn., 210 AD2d 938, 939-940; see, Suburban Scholastic Council v Section 2 of the New York State Public High School Athletic Association, Inc., 2005 NY Slip Op 08173, 803 NYS2d 270).
The record shows that the Protest Committee acted rationally in carefully considering the facts and applicable rules in making its determination. Petitioners assert that the act of Rodriguez throwing his headgear into the air prior to the end-of-match procedure cannot constitute unsportsmanlike conduct because it was done in jubilation and that unsportsmanlike conduct can apply only to insolent and disrespectful actions.
Without considering whether throwing headgear prior to the handshake is insolent and disrespectful, the court notes that the rule expressly defines unsportsmanlike conduct to include "throwing ear guards or any other equipment" and adds no requirement of insolence or disrespect. In fact, the rule also provides that "failure to keep shoulder straps up while on the mat" is unsportsmanlike conduct without a requirement that the wrestler simultaneously demonstrate insolence and disrespect.
The respondents produced an affidavit from the editor of the National Rules (Jerry Diehl, who is also a member of the National [*4]Rules Committee) who concludes that "the referee was correct in awarding the match points for the unsportsmanlike act" and that the "throwing of ear guards, whether before, during or after a match constitutes unsportsmanlike conduct .... whether the ear guards are thrown in jubilation or anger."
The respondents also produced an affidavit from Dalberth, the State Rules Interpreter who observed the conduct of Rodriguez and who also concludes that the intentional throwing of headgear is unsportsmanlike conduct.
The evidence shows that the referee exercised his judgment, as required, in determining that Rodriguez engaged in unsportsmanlike conduct in throwing his headgear. The court would exceed its discretion in substituting its judgment for that of the referee.
Petitioners further argue that because Florio and his coach had left the mat area prior to the referee assessing the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty against Rodriguez, the referee was powerless to correct a "scoring error." The National Rules editor, Diehl, states that the situation described was not a "scoring error." The National Rules provide that a scoring error occurs where either the improper number of points are assessed for a referee's call or the actual score has been erroneously computed. The determination that the penalty assessment against Rodriguez was not a "scoring error" under the rules was rational. Strangely, petitioners ask the court to declare "that both athletes are champions." To do so would be an abuse of judicial discretion. This court could no more declare Rodriguez and Florio to be co-champions than it could declare any other defeated finalist a co-champion.
The court is confident that referees throughout the championship tournament exercised their best judgment in making split-second calls easily second-guessed by participants and observers. These judgment calls determined the winners and losers of the matches. To establish a precedent of reviewing and potentially reversing a referee's judgment call from the distant ivory tower of a judge's chambers would cause unending confusion in the interscholastic athletic system. While Rodriguez' disappointment is understandable, this court declines to establish such a precedent.
The court has considered petitioners' other contentions and finds them similarly without merit.
The petition is denied and the proceeding dismissed.
All papers, including this decision and judgment, are being returned to the attorneys for respondents. The signing of this decision and judgment shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR 2220. Counsel is not relieved from the applicable provision of that section relating to filing, entry and notice of entry.
This memorandum shall constitute both the decision and the [*5]judgment of the court.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
DATED: ALBANY, NEW YORK
DECEMBER 6, 2005
THOMAS J. SPARGO, JSC
PAPERS CONSIDERED:
Notice of petition;
Petition;
Affidavit of Martin;
Affidavit of Casarella;
Answer and objections;
Affidavit of Van Erk;
Affidavit of Diehl;
Affidavit of Dalberth.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
