Violence in the N F L

[Mrs. Tuberski]

ok my question to be revised! We want the judical system involved in sports events, is that what im getting?? After u get them involved and they make all these judjements good or bad where do u draw the line?? Im sorry in ontact sports u cant make a precedent then take it away again. Which is what ur doing byu allowing govt into the sports. You will never know if the next guy that got his head bashed in wasnt taunting the guy who did it. Im sorry i dont agree

[Ben Kenobi]

It's silly to have the courts come in when the slightest hit inside a football game would be considered to be assault outside of the game.

Where does the court draw the line at determining what pertains to the sport and what does not? If the court is to be consistant then things like assault will be the same inside the stadium as outside.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We want the judical system involved in sports events, is that what im getting??

They already are. When there was the baseball fight with the players tossing chairs into the stands, there were charges filed against those players. Are you saying the only thing that should be done is banning and fining those players? When you have something so far outside the scope of the game, when there is such reckless disregard for the safety of the other player, charges may be filed. The law trumps the fact that they are sporting events, sorry.

The common law already has provisions for dealing with sports. It is a bit relaxed because it is consentual activity, but only when it is not out of scope of the game.

The law is already in sports and has been for a long time. Don't act so shocked when you see it actually exercised.

where do u draw the line

Where do you draw the line with every other law? Hell, I mean if we can't draw any lines with laws, maybe we shouldn't have any at all!

The 'line' is a reckless disregard standard. For the most part negligence doesn't do it (maybe in a couple states), it has to be far greater than that.

You will never know if the next guy that got his head bashed in wasnt taunting the guy who did it.

Isn't that what trials are for? And taunting doesn't excuse, say, getting a head bashed in by a wooden bat.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's silly to have the courts come in when the slightest hit inside a football game would be considered to be assault outside of the game.

Where does the court draw the line at determining what pertains to the sport and what does not? If the court is to be consistant then things like assault will be the same inside the stadium as outside.

It has to be outside of the scope of the game (basically a deliberate act with reckless disregard for the opponent's safety so as to cause injury to him). Hits in football games are considered to be consented to. Things like getting your head stepped on after a play, with a cleat, are not.

I mean, what if a player brings a wooden pole from the bench and starts wacking a player in the head? Are you still saying where does the court draw the line?

[Grandpa Troll]

Good folks

My intent in this thread was about "Malicious" hits, not as pointed out "a nail gets bent" and someone sues

I am speaking of Criminal activity

Another thing we need remember...This is not a matter of allowing or not allowing Judicial Involvement

The courts do govern all laws in the country, irreguardless if anyone like it or not.

I dont think the courts should intervene in all matters

But when an incident takes place the government will and justifiably so, intervene.

It is not like some good ole boyz club that when the local sherriff comes knocking on the door he is turned away...

The N F L is a sporting event, if an illegal activity takes place, the courts have all legal means to go after the guilty parties

Gramps

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Imran ur talking about the players now assulating the fans. Tossing chairs into the stands is in fact assualting innocent people that arent playing the game. If i real correctly there was an incident where a fan was arrested in a basketball game that included the pacers.
If your gona tell me that things that happen on the field that dont inlude fans is the same as those that do im gonna have to beg to differ.

[Lord Avalon]

It's really up to the DA. If there's a plaintiff that presses charges, and the DA thinks there's enough evidence to bring a case to court, and it's worth it to do so, then there will be legal proceedings. It may also be a matter where someone doesn't have to press charges for there to be legal proceedings.

Hate to bring this up, but does anyone remember when (in basketball) the Indiana Pacers visited the Detroit Pistons? Ron Artest laid a hard foul on Ben Wallace, who took exception and shoved Artest in the throat. They were separated by players, and exchanged words, and maybe it would have stopped there, and the NBA would have issued fines and suspensions, but while Artest laid down on the table at courtside, some dumb fan threw a cup of beer at him. Artest charged up into the stands and started pounding on the wrong guy. Some other fans went to the guy's defense (and the guy who actually threw the cup jumped in, too), and some Pacers players went to defend their teeammate. In addition to some lengthy suspensions by the NBA, there was definitely legal action.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Imran ur talking about the players now assulating the fans. Tossing chairs into the stands is in fact assualting innocent people that arent playing the game. If i real correctly there was an incident where a fan was arrested in a basketball game that included the pacers.
If your gona tell me that things that happen on the field that dont inlude fans is the same as those that do im gonna have to beg to differ.

So if a player took a chair at a baseball game and threw it at an opponent who was facing the other way, that opponent should have no recourse to the courts if he got seriously injured? That's absurd.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Gramps u are correct in some points as far as the league is concerned. Illegal drugs will get the courts invloved only cause they were caught off the field with them. If caugth dirty they courts wont arrest them. Unless they were caught of the field

[Ben Kenobi]

It has to be outside of the scope of the game (basically a deliberate act with reckless disregard for the opponent's safety so as to cause injury to him). Hits in football games are considered to be consented to. Things like getting your head stepped on after a play, with a cleat, are not.

I mean, what if a player brings a wooden pole from the bench and starts wacking a player in the head? Are you still saying where does the court draw the line?

By all means the sport should discipline a player who acts outside of the rules of the game. This is why they have them in the first place.

What you are calling for is the court to judge disputes between players and to essentially decide what is obviously conduct within the game.

There are many folks who oppose fighting in hockey, particularly those who don't know the game at all. Would a fight now be considered assault by a court that didn't understand the place that fights have in hockey?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Here is a good article on the courts and sports violence:

http://www.dcba.org/brief/sepissue/2002/art30902.htm

Some brief points:

Because sports is part of our society, however, it is not immune from problems that sometimes result in litigation. One of those problems is violence. Despite the efforts of sports leagues to police themselves through fines and suspensions, violence still occurs in sports at all levels, and sometimes violent acts on the playing field result in serious injuries to participants.

The First District Appellate Court reversed. The court stated that it believed "that the law should not place unreasonable burdens on the free and vigorous participation in sports by our youth."6 It went on to state, however, that "organized, athletic competition does not exist in a vacuum"and "some of the restraints of civilization must accompany every athlete on the playing field."7 Stating that "a reckless disregard for the safety of others cannot be tolerated," the court held that a player in an athletic contest has a duty to other players to refrain from conduct that violates rules that are designed to protect participants from serious injury.8 The court further held that "a player is liable for injury in a tort action if his conduct is such that it is either deliberate, wilful or with a reckless disregard for the safety of the other player so as to cause injury to that player."9

Most states that have considered the issue since Nabozny have also adopted the reckless disregard standard in this context,11 although some states only require a showing of negligence.12 The rationale behind adopting a higher standard of care includes the fear of a high volume of litigation, the desire to encourage participation and vigorous competition in sports, and the perception that the risk of injury is an inherent part of sports.13 The Connecticut Supreme Court stated that applying a simple negligence standard to sports would mean that "every punter with whom contact is made, every midfielder high sticked, every basketball player fouled, every batter struck by a pitch, and every hockey player tripped would have the ingredients for a lawsuit if injury resulted."14 Courts adopting the simple negligence standard have stated that the negligence standard merely requires the exercise of ordinary care under the circumstances and it can be adapted to the context of sports so as to avoid inhibiting robust competition.15

Despite the adoption of a heightened standard of care, the Nabozny court and other courts have made it clear that participation in an athletic contest does not confer immunity from tort liability.16 This is true even in the world of professional football, one of the most violent contact sports

The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court and stated that there "no principles of law which allow a court to rule out certain tortious conduct by reason of general roughness of the game or difficulty in administering it."23 The Tenth Circuit noted that the rules of football prohibit players from striking other players on the head, thereby establishing some boundaries that are intended to protect players against serious injuries.24 The court held that the reckless disregard standard was appropriate, and it remanded the matter for a new trial.25

The Oswald court stated that it interpreted Nabozny "as establishing the standard of conduct to be wilfulness or a reckless disregard of safety where an injury to a player occurs in an athletic competition involving bodily contact."

The Pfister majority expressed its approval with Nabozny and the other cases that had adopted a heightened standard of liability in actions involving voluntary participants in contact sports.47 The court stated that liability could only be imposed in the participant’s conduct was willful and wanton, which the court defined as "a course of action which shows actual or deliberate intent to harm or which, if the course of action is not intentional, shows an utter indifference to or a conscious disregard for the safety of others."48

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


So if a player took a chair at a baseball game and threw it at an opponent who was facing the other way, that opponent should have no recourse to the courts if he got seriously injured? That's absurd.

How is that different then an elbow to the jaw in hockey knocking out a tooth with the guy is not looking, or for that matter a knee to the nuts when the guy is turned away??

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
By all means the sport should discipline a player who acts outside of the rules of the game. This is why they have them in the first place.

What you are calling for is the court to judge disputes between players and to essentially decide what is obviously conduct within the game.

I think courts have dealt with enough cases to know what is reckless disregard or willful behavior in going beyond the scope of the game.

There are many folks who oppose fighting in hockey, particularly those who don't know the game at all. Would a fight now be considered assault by a court that didn't understand the place that fights have in hockey?

Do you consider the NHL's lawyers so horrid that they can't make this case?!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
How is that different then an elbow to the jaw in hockey knocking out a tooth with the guy is not looking, or for that matter a knee to the nuts when the guy is turned away??

If the elbow to a jaw or knee in the nuts was deliberate (rather than jostling for position and an errant swing occurs - that'd be ordinary negligence) and caused some significant injury (I don't really consider momentary pain to really be enough), then if the player wants to press charges, I think that is something that should be for the courts to hear.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

ok then if these guys dont expet to get hurt then they need to not make a living worth millions a year playing a violent contact sport. If they want to be safe then they should just play golf. Because football isnt safe,it never has been, the league decides what the proper punishment is and i think its becoming softer and softer