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

[Finkelskyhook]

Yes.  Some things are beyond the intensity of the game.

In yesterday's case.  In Haynesworth's case.  In Offerman's case.  In Bertuzzi's case.  In the Pistons/Pacers case.  (When Jermaine O'Neal sprinted across the court and coldcocked the guy on the court, I don't know how you don't prosecute that.  Especially since the league's suspension of him had no teeth.)  

[yall hate]

Yes.  Some things are beyond the intensity of the game.

In yesterday's case.  In Haynesworth's case.  In Offerman's case.  In Bertuzzi's case.  In the Pistons/Pacers case.  (When Jermaine O'Neal sprinted across the court and coldcocked the guy on the court, I don't know how you don't prosecute that.  Especially since the league's suspension of him had no teeth.)  

I agree with you...although not with the Oneal comment.  I dont want to turn this into a discussion about that one specific moment, but my take on it is that the fan came onto the floor, which he shouldnt have done.  you could make the claim that oneal feared for his safety.  bottom line is fans subject themselves to being hit if they step on the field of play (much like the streakers that end up getting tackled by players...anyone remember the pats lb that crushed a streaker like 3-4 years ago?  Matt chattam maybe?)

I think charging the mound is an accepted baseball practice...but if you use a weapon than it isnt (bat).  In college football last year or two years ago, the University of miami v. some other smaller florida school had a brawl featuring Brandon Meriweather.  one of the miami guys ran across the field with his helmet above his head and started swinging it at people...to me that crosses the line.

fake edit:  wow I was all over the place there, sorry if it is confusing

[kozlodoev]

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.

I don't see why events on a sports court should be different than something that happens in a dark alley. Players stepping on the court, pitch, or field have agreed to compete under certain rules. I don't remember any of the rule condoning disorderly or violent behavior that threatens one's health. As far as I am concerned, these people should be prosecuted.

[Finkelskyhook]

Yes.  Some things are beyond the intensity of the game.

In yesterday's case.  In Haynesworth's case.  In Offerman's case.  In Bertuzzi's case.  In the Pistons/Pacers case.  (When Jermaine O'Neal sprinted across the court and coldcocked the guy on the court, I don't know how you don't prosecute that.  Especially since the league's suspension of him had no teeth.)  

I agree with you...although not with the Oneal comment.  I dont want to turn this into a discussion about that one specific moment, but my take on it is that the fan came onto the floor, which he shouldnt have done.  you could make the claim that oneal feared for his safety.  bottom line is fans subject themselves to being hit if they step on the field of play (much like the streakers that end up getting tackled by players...anyone remember the pats lb that crushed a streaker like 3-4 years ago?  Matt chattam maybe?)

I think charging the mound is an accepted baseball practice...but if you use a weapon than it isnt (bat).  In college football last year or two years ago, the University of miami v. some other smaller florida school had a brawl featuring Brandon Meriweather.  one of the miami guys ran across the field with his helmet above his head and started swinging it at people...to me that crosses the line.
fake edit:  wow I was all over the place there, sorry if it is confusing

You may have been all over the place, but you make perfect sense.  But I disagree on O'Neal.  At the same time, because of the situation, I don't believe Kermit Washington's situation should have been handled beyond the league.  O'Neal's running from such a distance was clearly premeditated.  He had plenty of time to think about what he was going to do.  Washington's was reactionary.

My favorite on-field memory concerning this was when Mike Curtis leveled the fan running on the field back a million years ago.  Textbook hit.  

I don't recognize the difference between a 7ft man sprinting across the court and coldcocking somebody half his size and what Bertuzzi did.  I've never thought much of O'Neal anyway.  But somebody some 60 feet away posed no threat to him.  He could have killed the guy.  I actually have less of a problem with what Artest did than I do with what O'Neal did.  Although I believe both (as well as some of the "fans" there) should have shared a cell for awhile.

[furball]

I don't think actions on the field (or Ice or court) should be prosecutable (Did I just make tht word up?).  In this case of the monor league brawl, the player got arrested because he injured a fan.  That's understandable, much like a few years agoi when the Major leaguer threw a chair into the crowd.  

On the field there is no way to draw the line. Take the Bertuzzi incident, most people say what he did was outside the lines and had intent to injure etc. but the reason he did it was in retaliation for an illegal cheap shot the player put on his teammate which could be argued had intent to injure.  So why wasn't he arrested?  

You can't use the courts ruling that anything outside the rules isn't consented to because technically anything that is a penalty is aganst the rules.  So any fight, any slashing penalty and chop block, any fasemask penalty, etc, etc, etc would be criminal.  That's a lot of arrests.  

As far as the "if he did that on the street" argument (which was used a ton in the NHL incidents) that doesn't work either.  Just go outside, get into a three point stance and when someone walks by, sprint up behind them as hard as you can, lower your shoulder and plant them into the ground.  See if you don't get arrested.  Yet that's the job description fora defensive end.  If he did his job on the street he'd get arrested so you can't use that argument for other actions that take place during a game.  

To me there is just no where to draw the line.  Well, I guess if someone pulled a gun and started shooting people that would be outside the lines, but aside from that...

  

[Cassidy122690]

To me there is just no where to draw the line.  Well, I guess if someone pulled a gun and started shooting people that would be outside the lines, but aside from that...

I think you have to draw a line and do it on a case by case basis.

Does anyone remember this baseball incident - I'm pretty sure it was in college ball, Wichita St. in fact:  a pitcher was agitated that the lead-off hitter was standing too close to the plate while the pitcher was tossing his warm-ups.  Apparently, the pitcher thought the on-deck batter's proximity afforded him an unfair advantage with regard to gauging the pitcher's velocity and timing.  Well, without warning, the pitcher, while warming up, beaned the lead-off hitter while he was 20-some feet away and not looking even looking at the pitcher.

To me, that's a perfect example of criminal behavior taking place within the confines of a sporting activity.  "The Line", however characterized by whatever standard, was crossed.  Any risk assumed by that batter did not include the activity that took place.

[Robb]

There are so many ways that situations like this can occur and I think each of them has really interesting dynamics.  There are so many people involved in so many different capacities and all of them are each taking different risks. 

In the case that a fan is bringing a suit against an athlete, if it's anything like the game referenced here, where the offending action is outside of the context of the event, then yes, I think the athlete should be subject to prosecution.  If it's within the context, then obviously the athlete is liable.

I think athlete vs. official and official vs. athlete are very interesting.  I remember the Browns lineman a few years back who brought a suit against the referee whose flag hit him in the eye and ended his career.  I don't know if the player brought the suit against the official or the league, but I think that's legitimate because throwing the flag in such a way was an unnecessary, and--now we know--dangerous action to take, no matter how fluke it was.  I think there is a definite barrier between officials and athletes in ALL sports, even baseball, where any injury done by one party to the other could be looked at by a court.

The most interesting dynamic though, and I doubt we'll ever see, is Player vs. Player.  I just think that athletes by nature want to be the toughest, fastest, strongest, and best, but I don't think many of them want to have to prove it in a court room.  I think a great percentage of the modern athlete would allow their egos to keep them from bringing suit against each other.  Also, I think there is a certain code like Chris says where you're never intending to hurt someone.  Even in a hockey fight, boxing or MMA I think the vast majority of athletes would say that their intent is never to hurt or to cause injury, but the nature of the sport just lends itself to injury and within the rules of the action, nothing would be taken to court.  And hockey fights, though they are against the rules, are part of the game, and there are certain rules for conduct there, as well.

I don't know how the court deals with "unwritten rules" though. 

[zerophase]

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.

yea, thats what i meant when i said they should indeed be arrested. conflicts involving player to player interaction can be reviewed later but something like the palace brawl, where artest attacked a fan, he should be arrested.

[oldmanspeaks]

To me the difference between the "cheap shot" versus "criminal activity" comes about when the "victim" has no way to defend himself, no way to protect himself, has no reason to expect it,  and the clear intent is to maim or seriously injure. I have seen a lot of cheap shots but those can be handled by the rules and suspensions. If you are standing around during a timeout, you don't expect to be blindsided and that is criminal. The guy on the on-deck circle would have no idea he was going to get hit. etc. etc. If you are going for a layup, you know that someone might take a cheap shot so at least you have a chance.

It is a gray area in cases like when Tomovich (spelling got punched out). He was just running down the court. However the guy who almost killed him thought he was coming after him as part of a maylee on the other end of the court. If that had been the case, Rudy T could have defended himself or at least been aware of the possibly he was going to be attacked.

The guy who used his stick to purposely hit the guy in the head from behind was criminal because the victim had no idea that anything like that could occur.

I have been hurt with some cheap shots. They have been really dirty but at least I knew contact was coming. I just didn't know it was going to be the type that it was. I therefore don't consider it criminal. If I had been standing around during warmups and the same contact had happened, it would have been criminal.

[Rondoholic]

I think athlete vs. official and official vs. athlete are very interesting.  I remember the Browns lineman a few years back who brought a suit against the referee whose flag hit him in the eye and ended his career.  I don't know if the player brought the suit against the official or the league, but I think that's legitimate because throwing the flag in such a way was an unnecessary, and--now we know--dangerous action to take, no matter how fluke it was.  I think there is a definite barrier between officials and athletes in ALL sports, even baseball, where any injury done by one party to the other could be looked at by a court.

Whatever happened in that suit?  Does anyone know?  I just remember how big and swollen that guy's eye got after the flag hit him...

[yall hate]

I think athlete vs. official and official vs. athlete are very interesting.  I remember the Browns lineman a few years back who brought a suit against the referee whose flag hit him in the eye and ended his career.  I don't know if the player brought the suit against the official or the league, but I think that's legitimate because throwing the flag in such a way was an unnecessary, and--now we know--dangerous action to take, no matter how fluke it was.  I think there is a definite barrier between officials and athletes in ALL sports, even baseball, where any injury done by one party to the other could be looked at by a court.

Whatever happened in that suit?  Does anyone know?  I just remember how big and swollen that guy's eye got after the flag hit him...

If I remember correctly, it was dismissed.  That play was a an accident, there was nothing that anyone could have done differently.  Although, the player's career was effectively over ( he played one more season, attempting a comeback) and the ref actually hit another guy in the eye with a penalty flag a few years after...

[Roy Hobbs]

I think athlete vs. official and official vs. athlete are very interesting.  I remember the Browns lineman a few years back who brought a suit against the referee whose flag hit him in the eye and ended his career.  I don't know if the player brought the suit against the official or the league, but I think that's legitimate because throwing the flag in such a way was an unnecessary, and--now we know--dangerous action to take, no matter how fluke it was.  I think there is a definite barrier between officials and athletes in ALL sports, even baseball, where any injury done by one party to the other could be looked at by a court.

Whatever happened in that suit?  Does anyone know?  I just remember how big and swollen that guy's eye got after the flag hit him...

If I remember correctly, it was dismissed.  That play was a an accident, there was nothing that anyone could have done differently.  Although, the player's career was effectively over ( he played one more season, attempting a comeback) and the ref actually hit another guy in the eye with a penalty flag a few years after...

Actually, the Parties settled out of court.  Subsequently, Brown came back to pay, and the NFL filed suit for part of his salary:

NEW YORK -- The NFL is suing Orlando Brown for $500,000, claiming the Baltimore Ravens offensive tackle owes the league the money because he returned after receiving an injury settlement.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said the suit was filed Tuesday after Brown did not respond to requests that he pay back the money.

Brown returned to the NFL last season with the Ravens after being out of football since Dec. 19, 1999 when he was hit in the eye with a penalty flag weighted with metal pellets.

He filed a $200 million lawsuit and received $15-20 million from the NFL in a settlement on Oct. 9, 2002. According to The Washington Post, the settlement stipulated that if Brown returned to play, the NFL would get 50 percent of his after-tax income each season, up to a total of $1 million.

The NFL attorneys must have been scared that a jury would find that the official acted negligently, or worse, maliciously.

[Rondo2287]

"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."

It is in the collective bargaining agreements that you are not allowed to be docked pay for injuries.  This is why the Manny thing is so tough because it is impossible for the Red Sox to suspend or fine him while he says he is hurt, he is effectively holding them hostage. So a loss of income lawsuit has absolutely no bearing. 

I really dont think a player would get sued for a play that happens during the normal course of the game.  Remember Marty Mcsorely for the bruins was charged and tried for hitting the other player in the head with his stick and knocking him out.  There is already precedent for how to handle a situation that occurs during a game. 

[Roy Hobbs]

It is in the collective bargaining agreements that you are not allowed to be docked pay for injuries.  This is why the Manny thing is so tough because it is impossible for the Red Sox to suspend or fine him while he says he is hurt, he is effectively holding them hostage. So a loss of income lawsuit has absolutely no bearing. 

There's always loss of future income, if it was a serious enough injury.  Also, in the NFL, players have non-guaranteed contracts, and players have their contracts terminated frequently due to ineffectiveness caused by injury.

I really dont think a player would get sued for a play that happens during the normal course of the game.  Remember Marty Mcsorely for the bruins was charged and tried for hitting the other player in the head with his stick and knocking him out.  There is already precedent for how to handle a situation that occurs during a game. 

Former NHL player Steve Moore sued Todd Bertuzzi for injuries related to an on-ice incident, where Bertuzzi punched Moore in the head from behind.  Bertuzzi is in turn suing his coach at the time for indemnification, claiming that if he's guilty, he was simply following orders.  Gary Bettman (the Commissioner) is attempting to broker a settlement.

Bertuzzi also plead guilty to a minor criminal charge, to escape heavier prosecution.

I'm not a fan of those types of prosecutions / lawsuits.  Fighting is part of the game, and there's no doubt that Bertuzzi was out of line, but I do almost see incidents like the Moore / Bertuzzi one as an "assumption of the risk" situation.

[kozlodoev]

I'm not a fan of those types of prosecutions / lawsuits.  Fighting is part of the game, and there's no doubt that Bertuzzi was out of line, but I do almost see incidents like the Moore / Bertuzzi one as an "assumption of the risk" situation.

That's precisely the thing. The game has been distorted to an extent to which fans 'expect this to be a part of the game' while it actually isn't. You go out there to play a hockey game, try to score a goal, bang someone in the board and be banged yourself.

Which part of this suggests violence is normal? Should we also not prosecute bar fights because, when you go to a place where people are drinking, you assume the risk that some drunk hobo will hit you in the face?