Jim Porter has posted an article in the Members Only section dealing with and avoiding confrontations. Jim cites that

Quote:

According to the National Association for Sports Officials' (NASO) web site, only thirteen states have enacted legislation to protect sports officials from assaults. Twenty-three states have laws held up at some stage of legislation. That leaves fourteen states who have no such legislation even introduced. Since that is the best route that we as officials have to protect ourselves, each one of us has a duty to contact our state representatives to get the ball rolling.

Although I have written to elected officials to support legislation carrying penalties for physical abuse I am not sure that this actually "prevents" the abuse. It appears that it may deal appropriately with the abuse after the fact. I don't believe there have been any studies comparing states that have enacted laws with those that have not.

Does anyone have any "facts" that can be used? Jim Simms/NYC

Re: An opposing view
 

Here, here, Jim! I admire your courage to say this. Too often legislation makes us feel good without changing the situation.

P-Sz

This is sports. It may be a murky area which does require additional legislation. You can't just make a statement that battery is already illegal because:

A hockey body check, footbal tackle or block, etc. is NOT an illegal act in the appropriate sport but WOULD be if someone did it to a person walking down the street. In fact, penalties for on the field, against the rules, and sometimes injury causing acts, are routinely handled on the field, not in a court. No one gets arrested for using a knee-wrecking chop block or for hitting a batter with a pitch.

In baseball in fact, no one gets arrested for malicious contact - just ejected from the game.

It isn't necessarily that clear.

Why legislation?
 

First off, I'm very happy to see my article sparking this discussion. Thanks to Jim Simms for bringing this up.

To answer Jim's original question, all searches I have done reveal no state to state study. If I come across any additional information, I will pass it along to you.

So, why do we need "special" legislation? Because we indeed work under special circumstances.

It is traditional for the public-at-large to hate the umpire. It has become accepted through the years that we, as sports officials, are required to put up with abuse - - that it comes with job.

When someone yells out, "Kill the ump!" no one thinks that's a threat. It's not even a threat when they're yelling it at us with their faces mashed against the chain link fence. It's not a threat when they're in our faces and bumping our chests. It's not considered a threat, even as they're following us to our cars, and yelling obscenities and cursing our families.

Nope, it's all a part of the job. If you don't like it, don't be a sports official - that's a popular attitude.

Since we are the authority figures - the "police" of sports if you will, that leaves us vulnerable to assault. Couple that with the attitude that we are required to accept a certain degree of abuse as a part of our jobs, and the issues become even cloudier. Add to that the fact that, historically, sports officials are abused while fans cheer, and that places us even further away from mainstream society when it comes to assault. That's right, when officials are assaulted, people stand up and cheer.

We do need special legislation, because we work under special conditions. An ordinary citizen, whom original laws were designed to protect, is not in an authority position, is not traditionally despised, is not expected to accept a certain degree of abuse, is not in a position where their very job places them in arm's reach of assault, and generally is not cheered and jeered by hundreds of people as a dad punches him in the face for a call against his kid.

Nope, we're in special circumstances, and we need special legislation to send a clear message to our would-be attackers. Legislation would be preventative - that's the whole point to having laws - to deter crime. By pushing for laws which recognize that we are in a job with special considerations, we take giant leaps toward slowing this assault trend down.

Re: An opposing view
 

<i> Originally posted by Jim Mills </i>

<b> I have written my legislator urging her not to support any such legislation. It is already illegal to physically abuse a sports official in every state--in the same manner in which battery against anyone is generally illegal. If the law enforcement establishment doesn't enforce what is already on the books, what makes anyone think they will enforce a new one with any degree of regularity or consistency? I dislike incidents of battery against umpires as much as you do, but my role as citizen outweighs that of sports official. </b>

Jim, the problem too many people who are abusing officials get a mere <b> slap on the wrist </b>. Unfortunatley, when something bad happens, then someone will <i> jump on it </i>. I have had 1 bad experience. The 3rd base coach picked up at bat and took a few steps towards me, but then he dropped it on his way to his car.

We have enough to worry about without having to "fear for our lives". This might be farfetched but if someone isn't going to help the official, it won't be long before officials "take matters into their own hands" and then let's see what happens.

If more and more people got jail time for these ludicrous acts perhaps coaches / players / spectators would think twice about attacking an official.

Pete Booth

Granted that it "isn't necessarily that clear", Rich, that doesn't alter the fact of Jim's position that the rules already exist to deal with the problem. What needs altering is the MINDSET which prevents these things from being dealt with under the current legislation. As you say, a lot of things happen on the field/diamond/court that would not be tolerated by society elsewhere. The MINDSET is that people put themselves in the way of these otherwise unacceptable actions when they sign on to play the game. To a certain extent that's true, but there are also lots of actions which are illegal in the sports involved too.

People seem to feel that punishment for illegal acts by the sports should not be followed up with punishment by the courts, because that would be a form of DOUBLE JEOPARDY for a single offense. I prefer to think of it as an appeal of the sentence to a higher authority by the aggrieved party! If you deliberately hit an umpire on the diamond you might be banned from the sport for life. Is that an appropriate or sufficient punishment? I don't think so, personally. If that were to happen to me I wouldn't think twice about pressing charges for criminal assault AND suing for damages in a civil court! The fact that I have chosen to enter the field as an official shouldn't operate to open me up for criminal assault or preclude me from seeking the civil remedies normally available to me elsewhere.

Officials seem to feel that, because the game specifies a punishment for an illegal act, they have no recourse to other means. Not true. If you are assaulted in a way that deprives you of your income, or that permanently alters your life style, behaviour or appearance, any punishment the game offers is NOT going to compensate you for what you have suffered. The game can only deal with the illegality according to its own rules. There is no opportunity for those rules to specify criminal penalties or civil damages. You have to have civil recourse at least. I don't see why that shouldn't also apply to criminal recourse. It only takes one conviction to set that precedent. We are starting to see that taking place even now. Assault a football referee on television and you WILL be charged with criminal assault. The MINDSET is changing, IMHO for the better. Participation in sport should NOT be a licence to behave contrary to society's mores.

We can easily accept that it is illegal to shoot or stab someone on the field of play. Why should things be different simply because the weapon of choice is a body part such as a fist, a knee or a head? Where criminal acts in sport are concerned, the question revolves around the intent to cause injury rather than simply to play the game and is properly decided in the courts NOT by a sporting body.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 27th, 2001 at 01:59 PM]

one missed point.....
 

An Attitude of Respect
 

Just wondering if you could provide a brief overview I do not recall what the Wichita State case concerns.


I am not sure how many people who resort to violence at sporting events, such as the father who killed the ice hockey coach in Massachusetts, are "repeat offenders". I could actually foresee signs being placed on backstops right next to the field # advising someone of the penalties of assaulting an umpire. That could be preventative.

I think that is a terrific point. I think it is covered by Warren as "mindset". We see these negative attitudes in how officials are treated in American advertising. Somehow if your team didn't win it must have been the official who screwed you. Couple negative "mindset" or attitude with beer and you have potential for a real explosive situation.


I think that part of the movement toward national legislation to protect against crimes based upon a victim's sexual orientation is born not so much out of protecting a specific class but because some prosecutors at the local level have chosen not to prosecute or have sought the lowest penalty. I understand the position that these individuals do not need "special laws" just as I can see why someone would believe laws on the books already protect sports officials. If however you are an Asian American who was singled out for attack and your local district attorney does not pursue justice for you it may need further redress.


I throw out about one player or coach each year. The one I ejected last year was a 14-15 yr old in the top of the last inning of a blowout. He was out at first and in a voice only the coach and I could hear he told me that was the second call I had blown. I just didn't need to hear a snotty nose kid on that day give me his two cents. When the team tied it up and Johnny couldn't go out on the field the coach told me "..You have to take something.". Have to take? I don't think so. (See mindset) Jim Simms/NYC

Re: An Attitude of Respect
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ump20

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Mills Quote: Homosexuals and blacks are sometimes battered before cheering crowds in this country. The behavior is every bit as illegal when inflicted upon them as when it is upon officials, or Joe Citizen. We passed laws making them each a protected class. The behavior has not abated.

This is the classic position of the political conservative: Let's not do anything about hand guns; let's just "enforce the laws we have."

If history has shown us anything, it is that the criminal justice system is run by "people of their time and place." A crime that gets one person probation sends another to jail for ten years.

So we find two purposes behind the creation of "hate crime" legislation:<ol><li>It forces reluctant prosecutors to bring cases;</li><li>It publicizes certain crimes and the increased punishment, which may serve as deterrent.

That's the one that applies to sports officials.

As an umpire, which would you prefer to hear on the evening news: James Noname today was convicted of first degree assault and battery. He was sentenced to 6 months probation and.... (You know, that piece wouldn't even appear.)

BUT:

James Noname today was convicted of first degree assault and battery against Carl Childress, a local umpire who also teaches English at Edinburg High School. Mr. Childress expressed graditude to the jury for....

It's the added publicity attendant to "hate crime" prosecution that helps make society a little safer for us all.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Feb 28th, 2001 at 01:22 PM]

Liberal --vs-- Moderate
 

Carl has stated, quite well, the liberal side of the legislative society.

The California State Legistature meets yearly. Over the last 10 years they have passed 10,000 new laws PER YEAR.

That is the waste.

Sports Officials are not different than anyone else. We don't need new laws to protect postal workers, cab drivers, or college instructors.

We need simply to enforce, with penalties, the laws we have.

I have stated time-after-time on these boards:

It is the criminal justice sytem, judges and attorneys that have scewed up the system.

I too have written letters asking that NO NEW laws be passed on this issue.

Respectfully,

Tee

Re: Re: An Attitude of Respect
 

OK, since this has gotten more broadly political, with the bringing in of gun and hate laws, IF the above assertion is true, then it should be possible to demonstrate this through a reduction in gun crimes after new gun laws are passed.

I challenge anyone to demonstrate this.

Well, I can. There is one gun control law that has had a statistically significant effect in reducing gun violence in the states where it has passed.

It is the right to carry law.

Despite all of the fear-mongering of the ban-all-guns crowd and those who believe thier demagoguery, right to carry laws do NOT result in increased shoot-outs at little league games. But they do result in a reduction in violent crimes against the people.

These umpire-protection-act laws are feel-good laws that do not solve the real problem. The real problem is in the attitude of the police and the judges.

Re: Re: Re: An Attitude of Respect
 

Well, Dakota "sounds" like a fellow who might pack, you bet. And you could do it Texas, by golly.

You'll have to take your complaint up with the FBI. They have statistics for crimes committeed with guns for the first three years of operation of the Brady Bill. (Today is the fifth anniversary of its becoming law.)

Wouldn't you know it? Crimes involving guns decreased each of those three years, according to that source.

As Casey Stengel was wont to say: "You could look it up."

Now, I'm not going to argue that the Brady Bill was the "only" factor that helped decrease gun crimes. The president's relentless intent to put more and better police on the streets was no doubt a factor also.

But it would be too much to say that the Brady Bill and decreased gun crime was pure coincidence. Agreed?

It's a bit away from baseball, but it's relevant to what most hate-crime legislation accomplishes; that is, to bring into the open crimes against a particular class <b>simply because the victim belongs to that class</b>.

Would anyone deny that most assaults against sports officials occur <b>because</b> of a decision they made in a game? Aren't some people attacked just <b>because</b> they are black, or Jewish, or gay?

If you think the answer to those questions is "No," then you should continue your argument against special laws. But if you think the answer to any one of those questions is "Yes," then you ought to join me and others in pressing for <b>special legislation for special groups</b>.

Sports officials is one of those groups.

me oh me oh my.....
 

Do not be delude by what you read, re:
"You'll have to take your complaint up with the FBI. They have statistics for crimes committeed with guns for the first three years of operation of the Brady Bill. (Today is the fifth anniversary of its becoming law.)"
For many years I just happened to be privy to one of the sources from which those FBI stat's were complied. Like many companies, police agencies are no different when it comes to budgets and funding since alot depends on various statistics. So, don't think for one New York minute that those figures are not compiled in a favorable manner. The final FBI tally is insignificant to those composing the local figures.
These figures are compiled from law enforcements agencies nationwide, and I don't even want to think of what the accuracy is on those FBI's figures, these aren't conducted by the Gallup polls with a +/- 3 %.

Facts, who's facts?
 

My, my, my. First, I’m not a Texan. The state I live in leaves right to carry up to the arbitrary decision of the local police, and history has shown their judgment to be truly arbitrary, with no rhyme or reason behind it.

However, your “facts” are selectively chosen, and sloppily applied.

Source: Lott, John R. and David B. Mustard. “CRIME, DETERRENCE, AND RIGHT-TO-CARRY
CONCEALED HANDGUNS.” <i>Journal of Legal Studies</i>, vol. XXVI (January 1997). University of Chicago Law School, University of Chicago Press, Journals Division. Available Online: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/lott.pdf

The Clinton administration had a thoroughly abysmal record of enforcement of gun control law violations. If there are any examples at all of Brady Law violators actually being prosecuted, it is in the single digits. Further, the much vaunted 100,000 cops turned out to be all talk and little or no results.

But, it certainly felt good to pass that law, didn’t it? It MUST have done some good, because it FELT so good, right?

Re: Facts, who's facts?
 

Are you sure we're talking about the same thing? Violations of the Brady Law? I'd be surprised if there had been 10 in the whole country last year. The bill simply requires a 5-day waiting period before the purchase of a hand gun. Cooling off does seem to make a difference.

My facts are simply more up-to-date than yours. You stop at 1992. I'm talking about 1997-1999. But the point is not worth continuing. You're a little bit NRA, and I'm a little bit ACLU. That doesn't mean I wouldn't help you out if you were being assaulted by a Texas tarantula.

Re: Re: Facts, who's facts?
 

LOL. I like your sense of humor, Carl.

Actually, Lott has updated his study, but it is not available free on the internet. However, this is not an NRA (or ACLU) forum, so I'm dropping the subject. (BTW, I don't own a gun, and never have! I do believe in applying logic rather than emotion to solving problems, however.)

Re: Re: Re: An Attitude of Respect
 

I often wear two ball bags especially when doing Connie Mack baseball. Although we are supposed to start out with three baseballs I encourage coaches to give me as many as they want especially if we have a drizzle. Now I may have to figure out how to include my POS+ holster! I somehow can't imagine the city of New York full of concealed weapons as a safer City. I am pro-gun control. License, register, and train. Treat guns at least the same as you treat driving a car. I also realize that in this great "melting pot" we have diverse opinions about what constitute rights but I think urban America is a different place than rural America. Jim/NYC

Wichita State Case
 

Jim Mills originally mentioned

Thanks for the link. I do recall the incident. From my reading of it sure sounds like a criminal assault rather than a civil case. I take it the Wichita State pitcher was not arrested. From an umpire's standpoint it does not sound as if the umpires could have anticipated such an incident in the top of the first with an on-deck batter 24 feet from home plate! Jim Simms/NYC

Re: Re: Re: Re: An Attitude of Respect
 

Jim, NYC already IS full of concealed weapons, and they are NOT carried by law abiding citizens. In states with laws that allow any law abiding citizen to get a permit to carry, a VERY small percentage avail themselves of that privilege. The impact on crime, however, is huge, probably because to criminals don't know who is carrying and who is not. There has not been ONE incident of people with a legal permit getting into a gun fight at a youth sports event (or anywhere else). That claim is fear mongering, pure and simple.

Use logic and facts, not fear and emotion.

Special Classes - slippery slope
 

<QUOTE><B>Would anyone deny that most assaults against sports officials occur <b>because</b> of a decision they made in a game? Aren't some people attacked just <b>because</b> they are black, or Jewish, or gay?

If you think the answer to those questions is "No," then you should continue your argument against special laws. But if you think the answer to any one of those questions is "Yes," then you ought to join me and others in pressing for <b>special legislation for special groups</b>.

Sports officials is one of those groups. [/B][/QUOTE]

Where do we draw the line in terms of groups? Do we also include "professors", "teachers", "nerds", "the physically weak", "the mentally challenged", "the elderly", "bosses and supervisors", "white people", "drunks", "theives", "pedaphiles", "people who have been aquitted", etc.? All of these types of people have been attacked because of who they are or what they do (or have done). Where does the naming of groups stop?

If we want to stop the assaults, the only real solution is to increase the penalty for <U><B>ALL</B></U> assaults. This way, we FORCE prosecutors to do something about the problem. Every assault is born out of disgust for something.

I think we can all agree that assaults on sports officials (or other groups) simply shouldn't be tolerated by prosecutors.

Just my opinion and I'm sticking to it :)

Re: Special Classes - slippery slope
 

Where do we draw the line in terms of groups? Do we also include "professors", "teachers", "nerds", "the physically weak", "the mentally challenged", "the elderly", "bosses and supervisors", "white people", "drunks", "theives", "pedaphiles", "people who have been aquitted", etc.? All of these types of people have been attacked because of who they are or what they do (or have done). Where does the naming of groups stop?

If we want to stop the assaults, the only real solution is to increase the penalty for <U><B>ALL</B></U> assaults. This way, we FORCE prosecutors to do something about the problem. Every assault is born out of disgust for something.

I think we can all agree that assaults on sports officials (or other groups) simply shouldn't be tolerated by prosecutors.

Just my opinion and I'm sticking to it :) [/B][/QUOTE]What you say is true, of course. But dig deeper with me.

Professors are attacked because....
White people are attacked because....
Thieves are attacked because....
Women are attacked because....

Isn't it plain that in the United States we have certain people who are targeted SIMPLY because they belong to a HIGH-PROFILE group?

A white skin head in Jewish sections of Brooklyn is attacked because....
A black "gangsta" is attacked in Jasper, Texas, because....
A football official is attacked after a game where his call went against the home team because....

Or, look at it this way:

In general: Professors, white people, thieves, drunks, teachers, nerds, etc., are not HATED because they belong to those categories. That is, an INDIVIDUAL drunk may be hated (because he killed people in an accident), but he is not hated as a DRUNK but as a specific kind of drunk.

Sports official are often hated because they are simply sports officials.

Surely we can agree that some folks draw hard lines around ethic and racial lines.

But it's not always the case.

Example: Joe Childress, a black teacher, is attacked in a white neighborhood. It MIGHT be a simply mugging. It MIGHT be a hate crime. Let's determine which. If it's a simply mugging, punish for that. If it's a hate crime, punish more harshly, for that is the way to begin to add protection to everyone who ON THE SURFACE belongs to that group.

Know'm sayin'?

Legalize Drugs
 

This sure is getting to be an interesting thread even if it is far afield of umpiring. Might I suggest that instead of spending billions of dollars on stopping illicit drugs we do as William F. Buckley advocated ten or fifteen years ago and legalize them. We can add them to tobacco and alcohol and spend that money on education starting at the earliest age. Gee whiz maybe RJ Reynolds can kick in some $ insteaf of spending them on ads telling us what a charitable company they are. Of course I have no idea whatthat will do to the civil war in Columbia but we'll get a bunch of helicopters back. Jim/NYC {bastion of liberal ideas}

Re: Re: Special Classes - slippery slope
 

What you say is true, of course. But dig deeper with me.

Professors are attacked because....
White people are attacked because....
Thieves are attacked because....
Women are attacked because....

Isn't it plain that in the United States we have certain people who are targeted SIMPLY because they belong to a HIGH-PROFILE group?

<B> When we begin to place more significance on one sector of society simply for the role they play or who they are, we <U><I>devalue</I></U> the rest of the members of society.

If I am attacked as a referee for a call that went against the home team, or if I am attacked because I am white, or if I am attacked because I drive a nice car (I don't, really!!) or because of the way I look, I <U>want</u> the punishment to be the same. Not to be terribly sarcastic, but I can hear it now:

Judge: The sentence is 6 months probation.

Me: But your honor, I was attacked because he thought I was ugly.

Judge: If he'd attacked you as a referee, I could have given him 5 years behind bars, but ugliness not covered under current hate crimes. </B>




A white skin head in Jewish sections of Brooklyn is attacked because....
A black "gangsta" is attacked in Jasper, Texas, because....
A football official is attacked after a game where his call went against the home team because....

Or, look at it this way:

In general: Professors, white people, thieves, drunks, teachers, nerds, etc., are not HATED because they belong to those categories. That is, an INDIVIDUAL drunk may be hated (because he killed people in an accident), but he is not hated as a DRUNK but as a specific kind of drunk.

Sports official are often hated because they are simply sports officials.

Surely we can agree that some folks draw hard lines around ethic and racial lines.

<B>There are a number of hard lines people draw. Yes, some are more high-profile than others but that is an issue for society and not legislatation. We already have laws that deal with assault. Just because I wear a referee's uniform doesn't make my work as an official any more valuable than the boss who must reprimand an employee.</b>

But it's not always the case.

Example: Joe Childress, a black teacher, is attacked in a white neighborhood. It MIGHT be a simply mugging. It MIGHT be a hate crime. Let's determine which. If it's a simply mugging, punish for that. If it's a hate crime, punish more harshly, for that is the way to begin to add protection to everyone who ON THE SURFACE belongs to that group.

Know'm sayin'?

You present a good point, and you may have swayed me a little in this respect. If a crime is commited simply because of hatred, then I may agree that the punishment should be more severe. However, I would hate to begin to put more value on certain groups of people by specifically naming groups. Yet, I've always thought that intent was part of the equation when a judge imposes a sentence.

Who knows but we may need to agree to disagree on this subject.

Re: Legalize Drugs
 

First time I ever heard Mr. Buckley called (even by inference) a liberal. Libertarian, maybe. ;-)

Trying to steer this back to umpire protection laws, we already have laws on the books making some people "more equal than others." (literary reference: <i>Animal Farm</i>)

In many states, the punishment is more severe if you murder a police officer than if you murder Joe Citizen. Does anyone know if there have been any studies to show that these laws resulted in a reduction in the murder rate of police?

The main problem I have with hate crime is the state is faced with either trying to prove thought crime (i.e. the murder is punished more severely because of what the person was thinking), or they have to take the shortcut to just declare that ALL white on black crime, gentile on Jew crime, straight on homosexual crime, etc. is by definition a hate crime.

The first option (thought crime) is highly disturbing because what thoughts will be declared crimes next? The second is disturbing because of the <i>Animal Farm</i> reference ... some people are "more equal" than others in the eyes of the law.

All life is valuable. All persons are equal, with equal rights, and deserving of equal protection under the law. If the assault and battery laws were enforced, we would have no need for special laws for sports officials.

[Edited by Dakota on Mar 1st, 2001 at 02:29 PM]

Re: Wichita State Case
 

This is just a brief note offering an outsider's view of these issues and on differences between baseball in the USA, especially FED and NCAA baseball, and baseball Down Under.

I think I understand WHY the NCAA has decreed that the on deck batter must use the on deck circle closest to his own dugout. I understand that as an attempt to avoid taunting, among other things, and so to lower the potential level of "heat" in a game by this measure. In this case, however, a rule designed to prevent an offense has actually produced a WORSE offense! Would this incident have even occurred if there had been <i>no special lines drawn</i> around who can occupy which on deck circle?

Once upon a time the batter went to the on deck circle closest to the batter's box he would be occupying. That still happens in most non-NCAA adult amateur baseball, doesn't it? It certainly still happens in ALL baseball Down Under, at any level.

This batter was <i><b>left-handed</b></i>, and so he naturally went to the 1st base side on deck circle, which is nearest the left-handed batter's box. Did he know better? Maybe. Then again maybe he was still mentally operating under MSBL rules or similar. Maybe it just didn't occur to him at the time, and he simply did what he had been used to doing in other branches of the sport, or what came naturally. Or maybe the rule just wasn't enforced regularly, and so he was doing what he had always done.

Should the umpire have enforced the special NCAA rule? Yes. Even if the kid was 24 feet from home plate, he was still on the "wrong" side of the plate, and about 50 feet away from where he <i>should</i> have been! If the umpire hasn't been added to the action, he should be. It was his responsibility to see that the rule was enforced. It's not like he didn't have time. There were at least 2 warm up pitches thrown, with the batter on the "wrong" side, BEFORE the one that did the damage was thrown at him.

This example speaks to both of the sub-threads that have been running here, IMHO. What we have is a case where a special provision WAS made by the NCAA in order to prevent trouble, and instead it ended up being the very source of more serious trouble. Sometimes making legislation that makes one group or another especially protected only increases the hatred of that group instead of abating it. And sometimes making "special" legislation doesn't deter or prevent specific crimes, it only draws sharper distinctions and creates "special" crimes. It would be far better IMO to blur the distinctions based on race, colour, creed, etc by punishing ALL breaches alike but more severely and regularly, than to draw the divisions into sharper focus - based on race, colour, creed, etc - by enacting special anti-hate legislation. It would also be far better IMO to punish the real crime instead of creating an artificial barrier, ostensibly to prevent an offense, and in so doing only end up creating a potentially more serious offense. That's what happened at Wichita State, IMHO.

Just my $AUD0.05c worth.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 1st, 2001 at 05:26 PM]

Ben Christensen, thug
 

I have a fairly simple view of such acts. Yes, Molina was not where he was supposed to be. Yes, the umpire failed to enforce the on-deck rule. Yes, Christensen's pitching coach taught him to brush back opposing players trying to time his pitches. Yes, the head coach probably knew this. Blame, blame, blame.

HOWEVER....

Ben Christensen was a legal adult. He, therefore, should be held singularly and individually responsible for HIS decision to throw a fast ball directly at Molina's head. Molina was 15-25 feet off to the side. This was an intentional act intended to harm Molina. Perhaps Christensen did not understand the extent of the damamge he could cause, but he did understand that it would cause harm, and he did it intentionally.

This is a prime example of prosecutors not enforcing the law. Are we going to make on deck batters a protected class now?

Since the only legal recourse left is the civil suit, I hope the jury awards Molina $multimillion in punitive damages soley and individually against Christensen, so he is not let off the hook one iota by the financial resources of anyone else, and the judge garnishes Christensen's professional baseball wages to pay the award.

BTW, here are a number of internet articles on this act of thuggery...

http://www.buildyournet.com/jow/base...Ben&Agree=none

http://www.jred.com/benchristensen.htm

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ne...0723pease.html

http://share.sportingnews.com/voices.../20000508.html

http://www.sportsline.com/u/ce/multi...317_39,00.html

http://sports.yahoo.com/m/ncaabb/new...nglawsuit.html

http://www.fansonly.com/channels/new...072300aab.html

http://www.totalsports.net/news/2000...0222.0487.html

http://www.sportsusa.net/shocking.htm

Re: Ben Christensen, thug
 

I agree that Christensen needs to be held accountable, but I don't agree that he should be held <u>solely responsible</u> if that's what you mean by "singularly and individually for HIS decision". Even as a legal adult, he is a product of the system in which he operates. If an authority such as his coach says to "brush back" (not hit) or hit an opposing player, there are penalties that operate against him for failure to comply. He doesn't get to pitch and his potential for a career beyond college is limited. Even when someone like him gets to the Majors, those same external pressures operate. These are exactly the same sorts of pressures that caused ordinary German citizens to ignore and at times even participate in NAZI offenses against the Jews. Peer and authority pressures are a powerful influence when they operate in a competitive environment and survival is at stake.

If Molina had been prevented from being in the wrong place by the umpire, in all probabilty the offense would not have been committed. The umpire is therefore partially culpable.

If Christensen's pitching coach had not told him that this was what was expected of him in these circumtances, in all probability the offense would not have been committed. The pitching coach is therefore partially culpable.

If Wichita State had made its coaching staff specifically aware that victory would not be appreciated or rewarded if it came at the cost of dangerous and illegal behaviour, in all probability the offense would not have been committed. Wichita State is therefore partially culpable.

If the NCAA had not declared it offensive for a batter to be in the on deck circle nearest the opposition dugout, in all probability the offense would not have been committed. The NCAA is therefore partially culpible.

No, Dakota, Christensen may well be a legal adult but he did NOT act alone in the commission of this offense, even if he deserves the lion's share of responsibility for waiting until Molina wasn't watching to take his sickening action. Holding the umpire free from culpability for his failure to enforce the rules, as he is expected and required to do, is NOT in the interests of other umpires or the game itself.

BTW, I don't think this was about "timing pitches". Molina could have done that equally from his own on deck circle. It was about WHERE he was, not WHAT he was doing.

Cheers,

You are technically correct, however...
 

... in my state we have a legal concept for tort lawsuits that allows the court to assess all damage claims against the deepest pockets, regardless of the contributory level of their fault.

Thug Christenses has destroyed whatever professional baseball career Molina had, while he proceeds to enjoy his own. Thug Christensen deliberately, with forethought, and with intent to harm, destroyed Molina's professional career, inflicted pain, caused injury that required medical treatment, and foreever changed the life of Molina.

Let's look at the umpire's contribution to this. The intent of the on deck circle rule is to keep opposing players away from the other dugout to avoid harrassment. It is not to avoid lethal weapons being hurled at them from the field. Could this have been avoided if the blue had enforced the on deck rule? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe Thug Christensen remembered Molina had hit a home run against him the last time they met, and he would have beaned him when he came up to bat anyway. Maybe he just took this opportunity instead of waiting. The umpire's contribution to this criminal act is minimal, IMO.

One could make similar arguments for all of the other co-conspirators you mention, with the exception of the pitching coach who, IMO, deliberately coached his players to use the baseball as a weapon.

Thug Christensen is the only person who should be held liable for damamges here, IMO. I could be convinced that the pitching coach should also be held liable for damamges, but justice would dictate (IMO) that Thug Christensen's professional salary be garnished and given to Molina for years to come.

Just my opinion. I won't make the jury, so it is just my opinion.

[Edited by Dakota on Mar 2nd, 2001 at 01:14 PM]

Re: Re: Ben Christensen, thug
 

<i> Originally posted by Warren Willson </i>

<b> I agree that Christensen needs to be held accountable, but I don't agree that he should be held <u>solely responsible</u> if that's what you mean by "singularly and individually for HIS decision".

If Molina had been prevented from being in the wrong place by the umpire, in all probabilty the offense would not have been committed. The umpire is therefore partially culpable.</b>

Warren, gotta disagree with your statement <b> BIG TIME </b>
on this one. There are plenty of rules in the book in which we do not enforce, otherwise known as <i> Nit-Picken Rules </i>. The only time we enforce is when someone is trying to be a smart a####. Example; Rule says all players except F2 have to have both feet in fair territory. Do we enforce - NO (ie; F3) except if coach comes out and wants to be a hard a###, and then we say Hey coach BTW your first-basemen will be penalized to. That normally ends it.

IMO I do not see how you can possibly or remotely blame Blue on this one. Is Blue Krescan? I'm sure if Blue <b> actually knew </b> that something ugly was going to develop, he would have acted. Your letting the 2 people <b> MOST RESPONSIBLE </b> off the hook.

There's 2 people at fault here - The one who instructed F1 to throw at the on-deck batter and the player who actually threw the pitch. The administrators of this institution could also have some limited liability if they knew in advance that this coach was not a good sportsman in their hiring process.

If you told me to kill someone and I did, both you and I would be guilty. This scenario is no different. That's the problem in Today's Society - <b> Everybody's looking for an out </b> instead of accepting responsibility for their own actions. As I said we as Blues do not enforce every little rule that's in the book unless as stated someone wants to be a smart a###.

Pete Booth

Re: Re: Re: Ben Christensen, thug
 

Whoa, there Pete! I haven't let anyone off the hook. That's an emotional reaction, not a logical response. All I've said is that there are <b><i>more than 2 people</b></i> responsible for this act, in the big picture! This is NOT a "fix-it" rule like the one you quoted. This is an NCAA safety rule, designed to prevent confrontation between players and teams. It is not an optional rule, although it appears that many umpires have treated it this way in the past. I bet they won't NOW!

Pete, Molina was hit for no better reason than he was in the wrong on deck circle. Christensen had been taught to deal with that by pitching at the player "as a warning"! This was a TURF WAR and the umpire, perhaps innocently, encouraged what happened by not enforcing the rule and preventing Molina from crossing to the wrong side of the plate during the warm up. Please read the story again and you will have a better idea what this was really about:

1. Molina was on the wrong side of the plate, some 50 feet from where he should have been

2. Molina was there for the time span of several warm up pitches before the one that hit him

3. The NCAA has a specific rule against this, to prevent friction between players and teams.

4. The umpire is responsible to enforce the NCAA rule and he didn't. That makes him at least partially responsible IN LAW. It doesn't make him a bad person.

Ok, then let's take your analogy one step further. Let's say I'm a policeman, and I know that by letting you walk into the neighbouring block there will most likely be a turf war, and someone could get hurt or killed. If I have been ordered to prevent you or anyone else from crossing that line, and I see you do it without even attempting to prevent the act, aren't I at least partly to blame if you get killed or injured as the result? It's called a dereliction of duty, Pete.

Sure Molina should have known better, and that might make him at least partially responsible too. Who knows why he didn't. Sure Christensen and his pitching coach were at fault. All I'm saying is so was the umpire, at least in part. The NCAA had given him a specific rule affecting player safety and "discipline and order on the playing field" to enforce, and he didn't enforce it. Look up that passage about "maintaining discipline and order on the playing field" - you'll find it's one of the umpire's most important fundamental responsibilities, and this umpire failed in his duty to carry it out! [see OBR 9.01(a) - I don't have the NCAA equivalent] THAT is why he is at least partially culpable, IMHO. You might not agree, but I'm betting that the courts do.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 2nd, 2001 at 03:19 PM]