Violence in Sports

[kingofthething]

I am all for contact sports. I can't get enough of football and sometimes hockey. But, recently individuals have crossed the line and have attacked players in a way that is unrelated to the game. The most recent example is Albert Haynesworth, defensive tackle for Tennessee that decided to stomp on an opponents head with cleats after the player lost his helmet. He was given a five game suspension, but I think that he should face criminal charges and a suspension for the rest of the year with no pay.

Perhaps this is harsh but does the environment allow violent crime. I have issues with players fined for possible accidents (helmet to helmet hits, spears, late hits) etc. but I think that any onfield action unrelated to the game that results in damage should dictate action by the District Attorney. Any thoughts?

[IAmMetaphysical]

I think players who take it that far should be banned from the league.

[Lathanar]

Gurode was contacted by the district attorney and asked if he wished to press charges against Haynesworth. He declined.

[DarkWaters]

I think players who take it that far should be banned from the league.

He should be banned from the league if not thrown in jail. A football player has no more of a right to intentionally stomp on another player's unprotected head with spiked shoes during a football game than a man would have the right to do the same to another man in a public park. Nobody has such a right. I am disgusted that legal action has not been taken here.

I also had a discussion on here about intentionally hitting a batter with a pitch in baseball, but I cannot seem to find the link right now.

Edited October 9, 2006 by DarkWaters

[IAmMetaphysical]

I agree with your statement about the football player and how he has no right to do what he did, but I think in baseball its a bit different because it is understood that from time to time a pitcher will intentionally throw the ball at the batter, it is punishable, but somewhat expected. I'd say if Jorge Posada goes to bat against Pedro Martinez he is consenting to the fact that Pedro might throw at his head. Pedro should be punished by the rules of the game, and given a warning and ejection for subsequent offense in the same game, but he has not violated Posada's rights.

I'm a yankee fan obviously.

[konerko14]

I also had a discussion on here about intentionally hitting a batter with a pitch in baseball, but I cannot seem to find the link right now.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...ic=7320&hl=

There it is.

[DarkWaters]

I think in baseball its a bit different because it is understood that from time to time a pitcher will intentionally throw the ball at the batter, it is punishable, but somewhat expected. I'd say if Jorge Posada goes to bat against Pedro Martinez he is consenting to the fact that Pedro might throw at his head. Pedro should be punished by the rules of the game, and given a warning and ejection for subsequent offense in the same game, but he has not violated Posada's rights.

Intentionally hitting a batter with a pitch in a baseball game might be expected but it should not be tolerated. The rules of Major League Baseball do not permit a pitcher to nail an opposing player with a baseball. Furthermore, such an action is strategically unnecessary. The effort in saving pitches as opposed to an intentional walk is minuscule. To argue that it gives one team a psychological edge via intimidation is poor sportsmanship. Stepping into the batter's box certainly should not be an implicit consent to be hit by a pitch nor should it morally grant the pitcher the option of hitting a batter.

In some circumstances, being hit by a pitch can resulting in a concussion, a facial disfigurement or damage to one's arm. Let's not forget that baseball players are in nearly all cases a multi-million dollar investment. Any rational and moral franchise owner would not agree to this consent to putting his players at unnecessary risk.

Baseball does involve some contact plays but I really think that intentional beaning should not be condoned.

This topic originally came up with regards to some of Chicago Whitesox coach Ozzie Guillen's "colorful" comments.

I am a Chicago Whitesox fan. I suppose that we are both disappointed with this postseason.

[konerko14]

Intentionally hitting a batter with a pitch in a baseball game might be expected but it should not be tolerated. The rules of Major League Baseball do not permit a pitcher to nail an opposing player with a baseball. Furthermore, such an action is strategically unnecessary. The effort in saving pitches as opposed to an intentional walk is minuscule. To argue that it gives one team a psychological edge via intimidation is poor sportsmanship. Stepping into the batter's box certainly should not be an implicit consent to be hit by a pitch nor should it morally grant the pitcher the option of hitting a batter.

Do you realize that you are essentially telling pitchers that they shouldnt pitch inside at all, in case they may hit a batter? Hitting a batter may not be strategic in your opinion, but pitching inside definitely is, and sometimes the most effective pitch inside is thrown near the head or feet. And when its a matter of inches from where players stand from the plate, they are bound to get hit or even beaned. It seems like youre talking about intentionally hitting a batter with a pitch, but how can you prove that its intentional?

Also, I pointed out earlier that if an opposing player injures someone on the other team whether its from a pitcher hitting a batter or a takeout slide, that would call for some sort of action from that team to act in self-defense or to get back at them. You injure our players, we injure yours. As opposed to 'you injure our players, we do nothing and you gain a possible large advantage from that'.

[DarkWaters]

Do you realize that you are essentially telling pitchers that they shouldnt pitch inside at all, in case they may hit a batter?

No, no, no, no, no, no. This is certainly not what I am saying. It is morally wrong to intentionally hit a batter with a pitch. Your accusation is tantamount to saying that I am essentially telling automobile drivers that they should not drive on streets with crosswalks in case if they might hit a pedestrian. Whether or not a pitcher intended to hit a batter, they must still assume the responsibility for hitting him.

It seems like youre talking about intentionally hitting a batter with a pitch, but how can you prove that its intentional?

I was focusing on the morality of this issue. You are questioning the legal implementation of enforcing my proposed principle. Intent can be difficult to prove and the details of doing so would be a digression.

Also, I pointed out earlier that if an opposing player injures someone on the other team whether its from a pitcher hitting a batter or a takeout slide, that would call for some sort of action from that team to act in self-defense or to get back at them. You injure our players, we injure yours.

I also pointed out to you that through this principle you would be holding all players morally accountable for the actions of a single jerk on their team, who has not received their consent to be their representative. Baseball players are in an organization whose stated interest is to play baseball, not to intentionally injure opposing players. The "eye for an eye" morality you are preaching is found in the Code of Hammurabi and parts of the Old Testament (e.g., Exodus 21:23-25, Leviticus 24:18-20, Deuteronomy 19:21). This morality is not based in reason.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Darkwaters, I agree that intentionally hitting a player is wrong morally, but my position was that it should be legal, not necessarily in baseball rules, but in the law of the country, i.e. it is not a violation of rights. Intentionally hitting a player is never to the teams advantage, unless maybe if its in retaliation, and the retaliation is in order let future teams know that if they hit one of our players, on purpose, then one of theirs will get hit and possibly be hurt.

And yes, I am dissapointed although not surprised by this year's postseason. Pitching has been the Yankees bane all year, and it didn't help that their bats went sleepy-bye either.

[DarkWaters]

Darkwaters, I agree that intentionally hitting a player is wrong morally, but my position was that it should be legal, not necessarily in baseball rules, but in the law of the country, i.e. it is not a violation of rights. Intentionally hitting a player is never to the teams advantage, unless maybe if its in retaliation, and the retaliation is in order let future teams know that if they hit one of our players, on purpose, then one of theirs will get hit and possibly be hurt.

My apologies if I have misrepresented you.

As you can probably infer from some of my other posts, I am not comfortable with the retaliation argument. I believe that players and teams should first look to Major League Baseball to enforce rules to ensure the safety of the willing participants. Of course, if the MLB fails to take action with celerity to guarantee the safety of the players then some retaliation would be justified if it was truly an act of self defense.

With regards to the legality, the right of the batter that could be violated would be his right to his own body, which is in essence his right to life. If a batter suffers a serious injury from being hit by a pitch this would infringe on this right. Perhaps when assigning some sort of punishment for this action, the context of it being performed during a baseball game could be considered. Nevertheless, I still see an argument for legal action to be taken under certain circumstances.

[IAmMetaphysical]

I think yes, that under certain circumstances, like if a player charged the mound with the bat and starting smacking the pitcher, legal action is necessary. But pitching inside and even hitting a batter, like it or not, is still a part of the game, and is tolerated the first time (the punishment is usually a warning) so my argument is, that when a batter goes to the plate he is consenting to putting his body in danger for the sake of playing the game. When a batter charges the mound, he is not playing baseball, and is therefore stepping outside his legal bounds. Its like a boxer who bites the ear off his competitor; as long as he is boxing, if he kills his opponent, he is not legally guilty, but once he steps outside the sport of boxing and disfigures his opponent, he is.

[DarkWaters]

But pitching inside and even hitting a batter, like it or not, is still a part of the game, and is tolerated the first time (the punishment is usually a warning)

Since the rules of Major League Baseball explicity (see Rule 8.02 (d) ) state that that a pitcher may not intentionally pitch at a batter, I would say that an intentional beanball is out of the context of playing baseball. Nevertheless, I think you have a legitimate point about its toleration. Since the explicitly stated response is for the umpire to initially issue a warning, this suggests a decent argument that intentional beanballs are part of the game.

Incidently, you would be happy to know that a California Supreme Court has agreed with you and ruled 6-1 that a player may not take legal action for intentionally being hit by a pitch.

[IAmMetaphysical]

It makes me more happy to have your half-agreement.

[kingofthething]

This issue about beaning players in baseball is what has been bothering me, but I think I have a pretty good solution. If found to be intentional, and it results in injury, can't the batter file a civil law suit for damages. This is still very different from stomping on a players head, which is not even remotely part of football. All in all though I think we can generally agree that it is the intent of the action in a sport that determines it's legality. Example: An obviously late hit in football or a hit immediately after the ball is thrown. Speaking of which, do you agree that QB's are being pampered too much these days?

[IAmMetaphysical]

I do think that QB's are too pampered, but the alternative is having to watch a bunch of second-stringers play because of all the starters being injured.

[JMeganSnow]

I Its like a boxer who bites the ear off his competitor; as long as he is boxing, if he kills his opponent, he is not legally guilty, but once he steps outside the sport of boxing and disfigures his opponent, he is.

Um, he may not be legally guilty of murder, but he's still legally responsible. Now, what this means in the context of possible legal repercussions may vary quite a bit, and responsibility may be absorbed by the league, depending.

I don't see anyone arguing that going to a doctor for surgery means that you're accepting that he may sew a sponge up inside your torso and this is just one of those risks you have to accept. Just because you've volunteered to engage in a potentially risky activity doesn't mean that you waive your rights . . . in fact, you can't waive moral rights (those inherent in your nature as a human being), although you can waive legal/procedural rights (those granted to you by specific laws, like the right to a trial by jury).

[IAmMetaphysical]

When one enters a boxing ring, one is consenting to all the injuries one might sustain while boxing, this includes death. The boxer that kills you, if he does so without breaking any of the rules of boxing may be the cause of your death, but he is not responsible for any damages or any legal action, well he shouldn't be at least.

I have a right to my life, which means I have a right to engage in activities that might harm or end my life, this includes getting involved in boxing or even "fights to the death." If I agree to engage in a sport where the object is to kill your opponent (and the other person agrees) then neither of us is guilty of murder, or should be held responsible for the other's death. The right to your life means the right to be able to "waive your moral rights" that is your right to not be killed by another. If I was dying a painful death by cancer, I can waive my right to not be killed by Dr. Kevorkian no?