By Steve Byas

With one minute and four seconds left in the quarterfinal game between Locust Grove and Oklahoma City Douglas high schools, it appeared that the Douglas Trojans had won with a long run putting the Trojans ahead.

However, an official threw a flag because a Douglas coach had violated the rule against being on the field, or obstructing the official's path down the sidelines. A correct application of the rule would have penalized the Douglas team five yards as a "dead ball foul," after the play. In other words, the touchdown would have stood, and the five yards would have been stepped off after the play.

But, the official misapplied the rule, and none of his fellow officials caught the misapplication. They said the penalty wiped out the touchdown, and stepped off the five yards from the previous line of scrimmage. Locust Grove then held on for a 20-19 victory, and appeared to advance to the state semi-finals.

After appeals to the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association (OSSAA) failed, and even an appeal to court was rejected, the victory by Locust Grove stood.

It was a bad deal, and unfair to Douglas. The rule, had it been accurately applied, would have almost certainly led to a Douglas victory. But, the officials made an honest mistake, and it almost certainly cost Douglas the game.

But, consider this.

Let us say, that instead of an honest mistake, let's say that the referees simply decided the rule itself was a bad rule. I mean, after all, why shouldn't football officials, who after all get to see a whole lot of football, simply decide that the rule should not be a "dead ball" foul? After all, it used to be a rule as the officials called it. Maybe they didn't like the rule change. Perhaps it would be better if football officials could simply change the rules during the game.

Absurd, you say? You say that referees are supposed to interpret and apply the rules to the game, not make the rules?

Well, if that is your position, aren't the Constitution and the rule of law a whole lot more important than a high school football game?

If football officials are supposed to simply apply the rule of, say, pass interference, and not, say, make the rule as to what constitutes pass interference, why should a judge (federal or state) be allowed to substitute his opinion as to what the law should be? Why should a president be able to just ignore the law?

As Walter Williams said in a recent column, "The reason baseball games end peaceably -- with players and team owners satisfied with the process, whether they win or lose -- is that baseball rules (law) are applied equally to all players. They're fixed, and umpires don't make up rules as they go along."

Sadly, I see a growing number of Americans who have no respect for the rule of law, even going so far as to assert that judges and presidents should simply ignore the Constitution when it is, in their un humble opinion, unjust. Let's get it straight -- if judges and presidents can simply ignore statutes and even the Constitution if it does not meet their concept of "justice," then we have no rule of law, we have no Constitution, we are a government of men, and not of laws.

A president and a judge take an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet some contend that should not matter. They argue, "Well, this creates a moral dilemma. You might have to either enforce an unjust law, or violate your oath."

No, it does not create a moral dilemma. I know that lying is no big deal anymore to some of these holier-than-thou "moral giants," but the solution is easy. If you cannot rule according to the law, then you need to do the honorable thing and resign.

If you want to change the law, then run for Congress or the Oklahoma Legislature. Otherwise, if you are a judge or a president, you have no more right to make law or change law, than a high school referee has a right to make the rules for a game of football.