Can you explain all that in laymans terms please? :waitasec:
I AM a layman when it comes to law, directly.
At least I didn't use Latin.
Seriously, I'll try.
Standing is that they are actually party to the issue, in this case, actually covered by the NCAA rules. The NCAA is saying no. In other words, since these defendants are not PSU they can't sue.
"Impinging." The NCAA is claiming (correctly) that PSU has a right to enter in an agreement, a contract, with the NCAA. They are saying, in effect, "Hey, you are trying to violate PSU's right (impinging on) to enter into a contract and, if you do, you could be hurting PSU without their consent." They are saying, "You have to sue PSU as well." Nice argument and similar to one of reasons Corbett's cased was dismissed.
Emmert and Ray are saying, "Hey you can't sue us
in PA, because none of what you claimed happened, happened in PA." Ray is recounting when he was last in PA, including a trip to Hershey Park with his kids.