The Supremes
Well, who would have thought that publishing a magazine for sports officials would provide an opportunity to sit in chambers, listening to arguments being presented on appeal to the seven justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court?
I had that opportunity recently and it was fascinating on a number of levels. First and foremost, the appeal being heard had as its core origination two unsportsmanlike conduct foul calls made by Mike Arendt, a highly respected wrestling referee in our state. Second, it was clearly stated by both sides involved in the appeal, from a legal standpoint, Mike’s calls were no longer at issue, though they certainly were at the start of this case back in 2019. What was at issue was whether the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA) wrongly imposed its disqualification rules on the wrestler, which took him out of the regional round of the state tournament.
We assembled at the appointed time. The room was packed. The wrestler’s parents, the Halters, who were driving the case forward, were on hand. Five or six representatives of the WIAA were on hand. Attorneys were on hand. Also in the room were students from two schools, who just happened to be touring the state capitol that day. There was not an extra seat available. My wife, Jean, and I sat in the back row. Because of the smallish size of the room, we were not that far from the justices. An interesting, though inconsequential, sidenote: Six of the seven justices were female.
Before the justices entered the chambers, a law enforcement officer sternly gave all of us in the audience the ground rules: no talking, no phones, no eating, no recording, no noise, etc. When she was done, the justices entered. The chief justice then addressed the room and the attorney from each side. Only those two individuals would have the podium to address the Court. Each side got 30 minutes to present its brief.
The first to speak from the floor was the attorney for the WIAA. Within the first minute of his remarks one of the justices interrupted him with a question. Quickly I understood this type of hearing gives the justices their opportunity to ask questions of the plaintiffs and the defense. Throughout the next hour there was serious and thoughtful questioning and answering, and numerous calls for clarifications.
As all of this was transpiring, I felt a sense of gravitas. The people present that morning were on hand fundamentally because of something a sports official had done. Mike had ruled (correctly) two unsportsmanlike conduct fouls on wrestler Hayden Halter. By rule, Halter was then DQ’ed from the next event, which took him out of the postseason tournament. His parents and his coach were not accepting of Mike’s calls nor of the WIAA’s enforcement. Off the matter went to Trial Court, which sided with the WIAA. Then to the Appeals Court, which regretfully sided with the wrestler. And then, today, to the Supreme Court, with the WIAA pressing its case on behalf of its regulations.
Even though it was stated that Mike’s calls were not at issue, from where I sat, they still were. The appeal filed by the wrestler’s legal team referenced those calls nine times. At the core, what the referee did in 2019 was now being referred to as a “distant ivory tower.” Let’s hope the judicial system doesn’t mire itself in such journeys. Our Supreme Court’s decision could come as late as next June. We will let you know.
Referee Magazine Publisher, Barry Mano’s latest Publisher’s Memo. Found in the January, 2025 issue of Referee. For more information or to subscribe to Referee magazine, visit www.referee.com.
View the Officiating In Perspective Video Archive on YouTube