The burden of proof falls on Obama now, since his BC is non-valid.
No court previously convened has used the proper presumptions. They presumed that the 1960-64 birth index and HDOH actions were “regular” (in compliance with the law). I have proven they are not, and Alvin Onaka himself has verified not only that the birth index is false, but that Obama’s birth record is one of the non-valid records that got into the 1960-64 birth index through HDOH manipulation/deceit/lawlessness.
This changes everything. The “ruling on the field” is that the claims on the HI BC are NOT accurate, and it is up to Obama to present the BC as evidence so he can try to overturn that legally-binding “ruling on the field”.
I think you are misusing this metaphor. The ruling on the field is that Obama is eligible--I'm sure you've noticed that he's served four years already, he was on the ballot in 50 states a couple of months ago, and the Electoral College rubber-stamped his election last week. You're the one throwing the red flag, but the referees need "indisputable" evidence to overturn the call. I'm sorry, but you just don't have that.