Fighting

[orangecuse]

Legally, this is correct. Assumption of risk is the main reason.

Indeed, and why I specifically quoted the legal term.

 

[EastCoast2]

Indeed, and why I specifically quoted the legal term.

Have there been many successful civil, or even criminal suits in baseball? Obviously, a basketball player stomping another guy on the ground is easy to prove intent, but what about a fastball that gets away and breaks someone's face? Hard to prove intent there... just thinking out loud here

 

[MCuse44]

the coaches should be fired. it happened on their watch.

 

[orangecuse]

Have there been many successful civil, or even criminal suits in baseball? Obviously, a basketball player stomping another guy on the ground is easy to prove intent, but what about a fastball that gets away and breaks someone's face? Hard to prove intent there... just thinking out loud here

Correct. Additionally, there's separation from the intentional act vs. the actual damage/injury. Yeah, I meant to throw that baseball at you, but I certainly didn't intend to hit you in the nose breaking same, etc., etc.

 

[Victory Lap]

Doesn't the victim have to press charges in an assault case?

If we get into a bar fight and I kick your a$$, if you decide to take it like a man and not whine to the cops then nothing will come of it. couchburn

If Frease from Xavier really wanted to muck up the works, I'm sure he could have called the cops after the game and had Gates arrested. But that would be a bit of a p-ssy move in a sporting event.

Not entirely true. As a prosecutor, I prosecuted cases even if the victim refused to press charges. This generally happens in domestic violence cases, or cases where we believe the victim is being influenced not to press charges for a shady reason.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.919484,-84.312929

 

[raf4488]

Legally, this is correct. Assumption of risk is the main reason.

Well, with assumption of risk you are assuming any risks that would be foreseeable for that particular activity. Getting sucker punched wouldn't really be a foreseeable risk of playing basketball.

 

[SU2NASA]

well look at hockey...

You can't compare hockey to other sports. As a former player, it's a completely different animal than what you see in basketball for example. Fighting goes back decades and was and is again a way to settle disputes. I've never seen it translate to off the ice. When I played juniors, where fighting was rampant, you'd see someone get cheapshotted, the enforcer on the team, or the player himself got a number and they settled it on the ice. I saw plenty of fights where two guys would settle it and go for a beer after.

It was the crackdown on fighting that led to more cheapshots, now that the NHL has let the fighting go again, you've seen that decrease substantially. Because when you throw a cheapshot, there will be retribution, it'll be settled, and everyone moves on.

Not sure how to say it, but it's a different type of player on the court. What you saw on Saturday is a prime example, and is one of many. These guys fight and they think they're "gangsters". You don't see that type of on the ice. Some people can handle it, and hockey has a tradition of fighting, but has been able to handle it since the game was invented. I've never seen someone seriously injured in a hockey fight, it's a hell of a lot better than just cheapshots.

Note that in the list of charges filed resulting from violence in hockey that none are from a one-on-fight, and none period since 2004 when the NHL became more tolerant again to fighting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_ice_hockey#On-ice_incidents_resulting_in_charges

 

[Fjoinkay]

It's entertainment and people pay to see it.

The Pacers brawl in Detroit back in 2004 is an exception and it looks like the Cincy prosecutor may take exception as well, but in most situations I think all sides want to move on and no one wants to set a precedent or lower the bar.

 

[SU2NASA]

It's entertainment and people pay to see it.

The Pacers brawl in Detroit back in 2004 is an exception and it looks like the Cincy prosecutor may take exception as well, but in most situations I think all sides want to move on and no one wants to set a precedent or lower the bar.

Name one basketball fight that was seen as entertainment and not something out of hand? Players have got in fights with teammates and brought guns into the locker room.

 

[Frisbee]

legally, it's no different at all.

As a lawyer and a judge, I felt compelled to respond -- in agreement with your statement. The law is clear that an assault during an athletic event can be criminally prosecuted. In this instance the assault was particularly egregious because it occurred after play had stopped. The courts weigh the degree of risk of injury, the degree of force employed, the nature of the act, and the state of mind of the perpetrator. In all of these categories, there was sufficient brutality to warrant criminal prosecution in the Cincinnatti-Xavier game.

 

[Cusefan95]

As a lawyer and a judge, I felt compelled to respond -- in agreement with your statement. The law is clear that an assault during an athletic event can be criminally prosecuted. In this instance the assault was particularly egregious because it occurred after play had stopped. The courts weigh the degree of risk of injury, the degree of force employed, the nature of the act, and the state of mind of the perpetrator. In all of these categories, there was sufficient brutality to warrant criminal prosecution in the Cincinnatti-Xavier game.

I cannot even fathom how unbelievably ugly it would get should something like that be prosecuted. You'd have both teams looking for any footage of the other in unacceptable behavior, looking at the educational background of the lawyers/DA/judges (and it'd be a sh!tstorm if they graduated from Xavier and only were going after Cincinnati players...). It would likely mean in this case that the two teams would stop playing each other, and depending how ugly the overall situation got I could see action from the Big East and A10.

I think the main reason why things like this don't get prosecuted is because you generally don't settling things down by pouring gasoline on fires...which is what a prosecution would do. So the courts let the leagues handle the discipline in these issues, rather than involving themselves and making it even messier.

 

[Frisbee]

I cannot even fathom how unbelievably ugly it would get should something like that be prosecuted. You'd have both teams looking for any footage of the other in unacceptable behavior, looking at the educational background of the lawyers/DA/judges (and it'd be a sh!tstorm if they graduated from Xavier and only were going after Cincinnati players...). It would likely mean in this case that the two teams would stop playing each other, and depending how ugly the overall situation got I could see action from the Big East and A10.

I think the main reason why things like this don't get prosecuted is because you generally don't settling things down by pouring gasoline on fires...which is what a prosecution would do. So the courts let the leagues handle the discipline in these issues, rather than involving themselves and making it even messier.

 

[Frisbee]

I disagree with your reason that these assaults don't get prosecuted more often. I think the reason is that the prosecutors (i.e. district attorneys) are elected and they don't want to alienate the local fans of the player/team that is to be charged with a crime. These cases only seem to be prosecuted when there is outrage expressed by the community.

 

[orangecuse]

I disagree with your reason that these assaults don't get prosecuted more often. I think the reason is that the prosecutors (i.e. district attorneys) are elected and they don't want to alienate the local fans of the player/team that is to be charged with a crime. These cases only seem to be prosecuted when there is outrage expressed by the community.

Likely, relative to public outrage. But generally, these cases are difficult to prosecute with no obvious conviction. There's always going to be a question of fact that exists amongst the parties and witnesses claiming they saw different things, etc., not to mention the retailation argument/defense that would be alleged from some earlier, more discrete type act, which allegedly ultimately led to the ensuing fracus, etc. Yes, in theory, as you've mentioned, certainly a case for prosecution can be built, but reality (outside of the testbook vacuum) is that the effort and amount of resources it takes, etc., generally, is just not economically feasible.

 

[longtimefan]

It would likely mean in this case that the two teams would stop playing each other, and depending how ugly the overall situation got I could see action from the Big East and A10.

The possibility of a suspension of the series has been discussed over the past 48 hours (and, in fact, has been mentioned on occasion over the last few years). It might be wise to let it cool for a while.

 

[PoppyHart]

What if you have a Victor Page type situation where the guy injures someone with a broom stick? Or what if Gates channeled his inner Monica Seles attacker, grabbed a knife and went after Frease? Are they still assuming the risk?

Or, does it matter if the injured is another player? What if Gates missed with the shot to Frease and hit the assistant trainer, or whoever, instead? Now are we back in "real world" settings?

I agree that that is the fallback doctrine that prevents prosecution, and that its made even more difficult by an unwilling by the injured athlete to cooperate with prosecutors. But these are poor justifications in my mind.