Gainesville’s request for injunction granted, allowing suspended players to play
A Superior Court judge granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction Wednesday that will allow 34 suspended Gainesville football players to play in Friday’s Class 5A playoff game against Hughes.
“I am overjoyed with excitement for our kids,” Gainesville athletic director Adam Lindsey said in a statement. “I hate that it had to come to this (filing an injunction), but in the end it is about what is best for our kids: Go Big Red!”
Clint G. Bearden, judge of the Northeastern Judicial Circuit, made the ruling and said he would schedule a follow-up hearing within 30 days.
The GHSA suspended 39 Gainesville players and 41 Brunswick players Monday in the aftermath of an altercation in a playoff game last week.
The GHSA reinstated four Gainesville players on Tuesday. The GHSA acknowledged Wednesday that the original count of 39 was incorrect, that only 38 players had been suspended.
Four Gainesville players who engaged in fighting will remain suspended, as Gainesville chose not to appeal their penalties with the GHSA.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Gainesville attorney Creighton Lancaster argued that the GHSA misapplied its bylaws regarding players who enter the field during altercations and that the GHSA is obligated to recognize self-defense as a right and not punish athletes attempting to protect themselves or teammates.
The game was stopped with 1:57 left in the third quarter with Gainesville leading 42-0. Gainesville was declared the winner.
Lancaster described what was seen in a game video, which showed a Brunswick player instigating the altercation by pulling off the helmet of one Gainesville player, then another, and striking one in the face. Another Brunswick player ran into the back of one of the two Gainesville players, knocking him down.
“It was at that point that the Gainesville team members came together to defend each other,” Lancaster said. “Self-defense needs to be recognized in these cases where students are under attack. They need to be able to defend themselves and defend others from the unlawful use of force.”
Regarding the GHSA’s authority to suspend players, Lancaster cited GHSA Bylaw 2.71 D. 3., which reads: “All players who are involved in a fight and any substitutes who leave the bench area during a fight or potential fight and are ejected from the current contest, will be subject to the sit-out rule.”
Lancaster pointed out that GHSA game officials did not eject any Gainesville players, and therefore, the players were not automatically subject to the sit-out rule.
The Gainesville attorney also cited another GHSA bylaw that says ejections “are based on judgment calls by a contest official and are not reviewable or reversible.”
The GHSA countered with Bylaw 2.71 d. 4. It reads, “The GHSA office may review film to determine participants in a fight situation, or to determine athletes leaving their bench to go to a fight, or to verify the correct number worn by a player in either of these situations. Note: penalties may then be levied, modified or changed based on this film review.”
The judge believed the bylaws were not clear and ordered a further hearing.
The judge also spoke on the self-defense issue. Gainesville cited laws stating that public entities are prohibited from enacting any rules or regulations that fail to recognize self-defense. The GHSA argued that it is not a government entity.
“I’m empathetic with the self-defense arguments, but I also realize (the GHSA’s) arguments that the GHSA is not a governmental agency,” Bearden said. “It’s not a state agency, but it seems kind of lacking in common sense that we would have one set of expectations and rules for our students when they’re inside a high school and a different set of expectations for those same students when they are athletes on any field of play.”

