Should athletes be arrested and/or prosecuted for events occuring during games?

[Roy Hobbs]

Fifteen players and both managers were ejected -- and a fan was sent to the hospital -- following a 10-minute, benches-clearing brawl in a Class-A minor league game between affiliates of the Cincinnati Reds and Chicago Cubs on Thursday night.

The ejections were reversed by the league president George Spelius and the game was completed with Dayton winning 6-5.

The fan was taken to the hospital after being hit by a ball thrown by Peoria (Cubs) pitcher Julio Castillo, who was throwing at the Dayton (Reds) dugout but missed during the first-inning melee between Midwest League teams.

Castillo was arrested and faces one count of felonious assault. He is in the Montgomery County Jail and has a court appearance Friday.

I know players have been arrested and prosecuted for certain hockey actions that were deemed to go above and beyond the area of sports.  At the time, I didn't agree with those prosecutions, as infractions like fighting and slashing are part of the game.

Something like the above, though, I see as completely different.  When you are so reckless and malicious to throw a baseball at another individual, and throw it in a direction where it could very easily leave the field of play, you deserve whatever punishment you get.

[Rondoholic]

I agree.  Although it is kind of hard to say, stuff like the Brasheer stick attack a few years back in hockey, although despicable, probably should not have been prosecuted in my opinion.  However, I think that some players may need more punishment than simply the fear of suspension and losing dollars to scare them away from doing insanely violent things on the field of play.

However, if something extends into the seats and begins to include fans and those not affiliated with the game (officials, players, coaches) such as the Brawl at the Palace and this minor league incident, yes I think they should definitely be charged.

[reggie35]

Probably, though charges should only be pursued if the victim demands it. Why should professional athletes get special treatment from the law? I bet if the same event you described had happened in Fenway or Yankee stadium, no arrest would have been made.

If the Chief had pulled that beat down on Bill in a pick-up game, he probably would've been arrested if the police were watching.

[yall hate]

Fifteen players and both managers were ejected -- and a fan was sent to the hospital -- following a 10-minute, benches-clearing brawl in a Class-A minor league game between affiliates of the Cincinnati Reds and Chicago Cubs on Thursday night.

The ejections were reversed by the league president George Spelius and the game was completed with Dayton winning 6-5.

The fan was taken to the hospital after being hit by a ball thrown by Peoria (Cubs) pitcher Julio Castillo, who was throwing at the Dayton (Reds) dugout but missed during the first-inning melee between Midwest League teams.

Castillo was arrested and faces one count of felonious assault. He is in the Montgomery County Jail and has a court appearance Friday.

I know players have been arrested and prosecuted for certain hockey actions that were deemed to go above and beyond the area of sports.  At the time, I didn't agree with those prosecutions, as infractions like fighting and slashing are part of the game.

Something like the above, though, I see as completely different.  When you are so reckless and malicious to throw a baseball at another individual, and throw it in a direction where it could very easily leave the field of play, you deserve whatever punishment you get.

The precedent is pretty clear on these issues.  If the person does something during a game that is not within the normal course of play/something that couldnt be expected then they could be liable (I am buturing the language, I will need to find the case).  There is a case, I believe involving a cincinnati bengals player who sued after having his leg (or neck, its been over a year since i saw the case) broken. if i remember correctly he was no where near the play, and the action was clearly malicious rather then being something that the player would have consented to ( by playing a rough sport).

Ill look for the case when I get some time, but I think it is clear, if the action is within the normal flow of a game then all players have consented and are aware of the potential danger.  when you have a hockey player swinging a stick at someones head, that is not expected, same as a baseball player charging and hitting someone with the bat, etc...

[Roy Hobbs]

Fifteen players and both managers were ejected -- and a fan was sent to the hospital -- following a 10-minute, benches-clearing brawl in a Class-A minor league game between affiliates of the Cincinnati Reds and Chicago Cubs on Thursday night.

The ejections were reversed by the league president George Spelius and the game was completed with Dayton winning 6-5.

The fan was taken to the hospital after being hit by a ball thrown by Peoria (Cubs) pitcher Julio Castillo, who was throwing at the Dayton (Reds) dugout but missed during the first-inning melee between Midwest League teams.

Castillo was arrested and faces one count of felonious assault. He is in the Montgomery County Jail and has a court appearance Friday.

I know players have been arrested and prosecuted for certain hockey actions that were deemed to go above and beyond the area of sports.  At the time, I didn't agree with those prosecutions, as infractions like fighting and slashing are part of the game.

Something like the above, though, I see as completely different.  When you are so reckless and malicious to throw a baseball at another individual, and throw it in a direction where it could very easily leave the field of play, you deserve whatever punishment you get.

The precedent is pretty clear on these issues.  If the person does something during a game that is not within the normal course of play/something that couldnt be expected then they could be liable (I am buturing the language, I will need to find the case).  There is a case, I believe involving a cincinnati bengals player who sued after having his leg (or neck, its been over a year since i saw the case) broken. if i remember correctly he was no where near the play, and the action was clearly malicious rather then being something that the player would have consented to ( by playing a rough sport).

Ill look for the case when I get some time, but I think it is clear, if the action is within the normal flow of a game then all players have consented and are aware of the potential danger.  when you have a hockey player swinging a stick at someones head, that is not expected, same as a baseball player charging and hitting someone with the bat, etc...

The Hackbert case stands for the proposition that in some instances, these players *can* be prosecuted.  What I think is more interesting is, *should* they be.

I mean, under a strict interpretation of Hackbert, players could be prosecuted for charging the mound, or in any number of analogous situations.  I'm not sure that's wise, and so the question becomes, when do prosecutors exercise their discretion, and when don't they?

[Cassidy122690]

I think the discussion revovles around "assumption of risk" principles.  Athletes, by consenting to play their chosen sports, automatically assume certain risks attendant to the particular sport.  In my opinion, fighting is definitely part of baseball and part of the risk that baseball players assume.  It's withing that framework that civil wrongs (torts) are measured.  Obviously, fans do not assume the risk of having a deranged (likely roided) pitcher hurl a ball their way.

As far as criminal activity, I guess it is the prosecutor's call.  I'd have to look more into that.

[Roy Hobbs]

I think the discussion revovles around "assumption of risk" principles.  Athletes, by consenting to play their chosen sports, automatically assume certain risks attendant to the particular sport.  In my opinion, fighting is definitely part of baseball and part of the risk that baseball players assume.  It's withing that framework that civil wrongs (torts) are measured. 

That was basically what the lower court determined in Hackbart (435 F. Supp. 352) before being overruled by the 10th Circuit (601 F.2d 516).

The Circuit Court noted:

But it is highly questionable whether a professional football player consents or submits to injuries caused by conduct not within the rules, and there is no evidence which we have seen which shows this.

That is certainly an issue for reasonable debate, but at least under Hackbart, I think a baseball brawl could pretty easily give rise to both tort and criminal liability.  (The issue wasn't settled conclusively there, but I think it's pretty clear what the holding suggests.  Certainly, they did not accept the "custom" argument.)

[speedster]

I think that they should.  There are 2 aspects of a scenario that I'd look specifically in order to determine if legal action is necessary.  What was the action, and what was the intent?

Suppose it's a hockey game where a player reacts to a check by turning around and whacking another guy with a stick.   Maybe he breaks a nose or even seriously injures the other player.  I would not prosecute an action like that which was reactionary and a split-second decision.  On the other hand, in a game of baseball in which a player runs out of the dugout and assaults the opponent with a bat, it's a whole different story.  In that case, he has had time to think about his course of action and it's pretty clear that his intent is to injure.

You are not exempt from the rules of society just because you are on an athletic field.  You must be responsible for your actions regardless of where you are.

[Reyquila]

In boxing and wrestling (and I know wrestling is a fake sports) if the opponent gets injured, well thats the nature of the beast, if a boxer dies or is permanently injured, well, he knew the whole idea of the sport was to put the other guy out with physical harm inflicted on purpose. But even in Boxing, which I dont necessarily watch, you are not allowed to hit below the belt and points will be taken off. In  other sports, specially  hockey, the purpose of the sport is not to intentionally injure the opponent. OIt is to put the puck in the net. It boggles my mind how a hockey player is allowed to deliberately swing a stick on the other guys face or head, and not criminally charged with felonious assault. No need for that; not necessary, and should not be allowable. But, I guess thats what fans expect to happen and they go to see it and pay for it to happen. So be it.  Dont expect me to answer any criticisms(sic) to this post.

[Chris]

Short answer...yes.  There obviously needs to be some consideration for the circumstances, and for "unwritten rules", but there are certainly lines that when crossed need to be prosecuted.  Here are the basic things that I would look at in any sport that would cross that line:

1. using anything as a weapon...so if you try to hit someone with a bat, or hockey stick, or use your skate in hockey, or in football if you use your helmet as a weapon.

2. clear intention to injure with a cheap shot.  Really the only good example I can think of this is in hockey where the guy on Vancouver (sorry, forget his name) came with the punch to the back of the guys head.

3. attacking a fan, who is not on the playing surface.  I think if a fan goes on the floor/field/ice, they are free game, but if a player goes into the stands, or throws something into the stands, that is crossing the line.

[Roy Hobbs]

1. using anything as a weapon...so if you try to hit someone with a bat, or hockey stick, or use your skate in hockey, or in football if you use your helmet as a weapon.

See, here's where it gets gray.  Does that mean that players should be prosecuted for slashing penalties in hockey?  Sticks are pretty routinely used to make contact with opposing players in hockey, and are penalized accordingly.

When you bean somebody in baseball (let's say as relation after they hit one of your guys), should that be prosecuted?  I mean, the baseball is certainly a weapon.

I think these are tough areas, and I think you need to look at the history and custom of the game.

[Chris]

1. using anything as a weapon...so if you try to hit someone with a bat, or hockey stick, or use your skate in hockey, or in football if you use your helmet as a weapon.

See, here's where it gets gray.  Does that mean that players should be prosecuted for slashing penalties in hockey?  Sticks are pretty routinely used to make contact with opposing players in hockey, and are penalized accordingly.

When you bean somebody in baseball (let's say as relation after they hit one of your guys), should that be prosecuted?  I mean, the baseball is certainly a weapon.

I think these are tough areas, and I think you need to look at the history and custom of the game.

I agree completely, it needs to go to the "unwritten rules" of the game.

[zerophase]

depending on how sevre the offense is, i def think they should be arrested.

[Moranis]

I don't like gray areas so with that in mind I would say NO.  Not ever.  Criminal prosecutions should not occur for actions occurring during games.  And so I'm clear I'm referring just to criminal prosecutions, civil liability and institutional liability are different matters.  I wouldn't be surprised to see baseball suspend the pitcher for multiple years as that type of thing is just bad for the game.  He should also find a civil lawyer as he will need it. 

[CDawg834]

When it comes to prosecuting on field incidents, charging a player with a crime can get tricky.  If we head down this road, you could see a player who gets hurt in the course of a game file a lawsuit against the opposing player, citing loss of income, livelihood, etc.  Should a player get suspended for a Flagrant-2 foul?  In most cases, yes.  Should he get sued or charged with a crime for it?  I don't think so.

However, anything involving a non-competitor (referee, coach, especially fans) I think there is a definite need for a criminal investigation.  Once you are out of the scope of the field of play, that changes everything.

I think the player who threw the ball into the stands last night should definitely be charged.  It was a premeditated act and he knew he could have injured someone.  While it is a fan's responsibility to watch out for foul balls, broken bats, etc. they should not have to attend a game wondering "Gee, I hope a player doesn't throw a ball as hard as he can into the stands tonight!"  That is out of the usual scope of gameplay.  Then again, I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea what legal recourse could occur here.

Anyway, I am squarely in the "if it happens during the game, it probably shouldn't be a crime" boat, because of the bad precedent legal actions could set.