Violence in the N F L

[Imran Siddiqui]

You can ask your self the same question if a guy goes to tackle another player dumps him on his head and dies or is paralyzed should the person doing the tackling be arrested for playing a game?

*points to link to the actual law above* I recommend you read it (for the first time?)

What im trying to say is that the incidents should be handled in the leagues commission. Not the courts

Same thing if a guy stomps another guy to death after the play has run? No murder investigation.. outside the league's commission, of course?

[Lord Avalon]

If it isn't bad enough that a sports commission could have all sorts of arbitrary rules (see NCAA), why, let's give them legal jurisdiciton as well.

[Lorizael]

If no lines are to be drawn anywhere, there is another slippery slope to travel down.

What's to be done if a safety tackles a wide receiver, and to make sure the receiver stays down, the safety grabs him by the helmet and intentionally snaps his neck while no one's looking?

What's to be done if, upset about the play, the receiver's teammates walk over to the opponent's side of the field, drag the safety to the ground, and beat him into submission with their helmets?

What's to be done if the safety's head coach pulls out a knife and starts stabbing the other offending players in defense of his own?

These are all outrageous (and highly illegal) examples, but this is what happens when you employ slippery slope argumentation. The point is, a line must be drawn somewhere, because otherwise the NFL might as well declare itself its own sovereignty.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Thats not the point Lori. Your examples are freakish but ok. Im asking when does it become the right of the law to decide? whos says? i mean how do u know the guy that got punched in the face by accident wont go and cry to the da i want him arrested, thats what im saying. You let it happen in severe instances and then the less severe ones will pop up and pretty soon what game do u have flag football?

[Elok]

So: if one of the contestants on "Survivor" poisons a fellow-contestant who he suspected was going to vote against him, should that be handled by the studio? After all, the people on that show signed on knowing there'd be some underhanded stuff going on. That's the big selling point of the show, the Machiavellian scheming. It's to be expected that someone gets carried away every once in a while.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well that's just the thing Elok.

No one is forcing them to sign the contract to participate in Survivor. If they get injured do they have the right to sue their opponents for causing the injury?

That's what the waiver is for. If you don't trust the folks in survivor then don't sign the contract.

[SlowwHand]

Why was an apology issued? Even the felon realizes his actions were unacceptable.

[Elok]

So...if somebody on Survivor attempts to kill a fellow contestant, not only the studio but he himself is legally untouchable? I can understand the legal indemnity involved in boxing, since the activity of repeatedly punching someone in the face is intrinsically risky *and* intrinsic to the sport itself.

Whereas there are clear limits on the extent to which normally antisocial behavior is condoned within football/survivor/whatever, and if you exceed those limits and injure someone the rules you broke do not protect you.

But what do I know? Nineteen Eighty-Four put it best: "If you want to know the future of sports, imagine a cleat stomping on a human face, forever. ****in' A. That's how real men do things. Now do you agree, Winston, or are you the kind of pansy who cries for mommy every time the ref gives him time-out in the cage where starving rats eat his face off?"

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Im asking when does it become the right of the law to decide?

We live in a land of laws. This country is founded on laws. This is such an absurd question.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Lorizael
We live in a land of laws. This country is founded on laws. This is such an absurd question.

Exactly. It's what I've been saying for the last couple days. Sports are not above the law and therefore are governed by them. Its the right of the law to decide things whenever the government decides that right should be exercised.

And in the case of contact sports that bar is very high.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Exactly. It's what I've been saying for the last couple days. Sports are not above the law and therefore are governed by them. Its the right of the law to decide things whenever the government decides that right should be exercised.

And in the case of contact sports that bar is very high.

No not excatly, id like to know when u draw the line at when the courts need to be involved. Thats all nothing more nothing less. When do the courts decide the laws in sports should be enforced? when u bite off an ear?, when u stomp a guys head?, when u knock out his tooth? When please do tell me. Cause i can see a lot of these professinal players thet get burned cryng sayng he grabed me around my neck and gave me whiplash. Well by all means call the freaking DA. You ca spout the laws of this land all you want im asking you a simple question which i have been asking this whole time when do the courts decide it isnt for them to intervene and when is it, and how do they know for sure that the offense wasnt prmediated in a game

[Lorizael]

He had a long post a couple pages back quoting very specifically when the law comes into play, actually.

[Ben Kenobi]

So...if somebody on Survivor attempts to kill a fellow contestant, not only the studio but he himself is legally untouchable? I can understand the legal indemnity involved in boxing, since the activity of repeatedly punching someone in the face is intrinsically risky *and* intrinsic to the sport itself.

The trouble is when you start to ask that question. How do we decide what is intrinsic to the sport? The sports have made their own rules and as long as everyone is aware of those rules from the start then it is wrong for people to sue one another outside of the game.

If you don't like the rules of the game or trust the people that you are playing with, then don't play!

Whereas there are clear limits on the extent to which normally antisocial behavior is condoned within football/survivor/whatever, and if you exceed those limits and injure someone the rules you broke do not protect you.

Again you are assuming there are such things as 'normal' and 'abnormal' conduct. The sports have defined for themselves what conduct is to be considered normal. If the courts were to get involved, then sports would no longer be able to decide for themselves what ought to be considered acceptable conduct.

[Imran Siddiqui]

id like to know when u draw the line at when the courts need to be involved.

I've only posted it like 10 times (a slight exaggeration). Start reading at the linked law article.

The sports have made their own rules and as long as everyone is aware of those rules from the start then it is wrong for people to sue one another outside of the game.

Um... only problem is that these people are suing based on things that the SPORT ITSELF has said is blatently outside the rules.

If someone draws a knife on the field and kills another player, don't you think that is something that people should be able to sue on? Even if the deceased player knew the rules?

If the courts were to get involved, then sports would no longer be able to decide for themselves what ought to be considered acceptable conduct.

If the courts were to get involved, then companies would no longer be able to decide for themselves what ought to be considered acceptable conduct.


Besides, the courts use the sports rules to begin the inquiry of what is actionable. Have you ever seen a case of the courts making a sport change its rules (outside of drug testing - Congressional hearings are close to being a 'court' for this purpose)?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The trouble is when you start to ask that question. How do we decide what is intrinsic to the sport? The sports have made their own rules and as long as everyone is aware of those rules from the start then it is wrong for people to sue one another outside of the game.

If you don't like the rules of the game or trust the people that you are playing with, then don't play!

Please indicate the "a several-hundred-pound man may step on your face" clause in an NFL player's contract. I do not think anyone really considered the risk of a face-stomping, because that sort of behavior has no sane purpose within the boundaries of the game. Nor do I think it fair to demand that each player form a personal bond of trust with each and every other, if that's what you're implying. These players just assume, going in, that blatantly malicious behavior is not part of the rules, and that as adults they expect each other to understand as much.

Again you are assuming there are such things as 'normal' and 'abnormal' conduct. The sports have defined for themselves what conduct is to be considered normal. If the courts were to get involved, then sports would no longer be able to decide for themselves what ought to be considered acceptable conduct.

The courts have, by not prosecuting, implicitly accepted that tackles and occasional fights/shoving are okay as part of a structured game in which the former are a necessary part of stopping a fast-moving man and the latter are an occasional, regrettable, but ultimately acceptable risk in the eyes of all concerned. If the NFL had decided that the proper method of stopping the guy with the ball is to beat him with a sledgehammer, provided that were listed in the contracts and thus informed consent were satisfied, the courts would probably let it go, seeing as they let people do other obviously stupid things given enough paperwork or precedent.

But I do not see how these players are implicitly or explicitly informed that direct assault with intent to harm is all in a day's work. Nor do I think their codes of conduct, designed to punish documented offenses in terms of penalties within the game itself, are an adequate substitute for the criminal justice system provided the criminal behavior occurs in a certain place.