Cheap shot foul on dunk temporarily paralyzes Indiana star

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree with the decision to leave it out.

+1

If this is a "normal kid" he is mortified and bothered by his actions and their results, without it going more public than it already is.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by grunewar

+1

If this is a "normal kid" he is mortified and bothered by his actions and their results, without it going more public than it already is.

He's been ejected from a basketball game, not charged with a crime. It's part of reporting the events of the game. I'd publish it.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

He's been ejected from a basketball game, not charged with a crime. It's part of reporting the events of the game. I'd publish it.

+1

To leave out the flagrant fouler's name -- assuming it wasn't a simple oversight -- is to say, "He's just a kid. Let's not embarrass him." That attitude doesn't serve anyone. When someone commits an act such as this, embarrassment does and should come with the territory.

[walter]

To me this is like the play at the the end of the St. John's/Seton Hall game and the official here should have just signalled the intentional and then gave the "heave ho" sign ala Cahill. If that doesn't rise to ejection, I am not sure what does.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

He's been ejected from a basketball game, not charged with a crime. It's part of reporting the events of the game. I'd publish it.

It may be a part of the paper's m.o. to NOT publish names in these situations. Down here in FL, some papers DID publish the name of the offending player in the DeSoto incident. I am fine either way a paper decides to operate. But the debate on to publish or not to publish takes away from the incident itself.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

+1

To leave out the flagrant fouler's name -- assuming it wasn't a simple oversight -- is to say, "He's just a kid. Let's not embarrass him." That attitude doesn't serve anyone. When someone commits an act such as this, embarrassment does and should come with the territory.

I just think it's an editorial decision. One I happen to agree with, and one with which Rich (for one) disagrees. It ain't a big deal, IMO.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

He's been ejected from a basketball game, not charged with a crime. It's part of reporting the events of the game. I'd publish it.

Yet. I can't imagine he's immune from charges simply because he was playing a game at the time he purposefully (making an assumption here) injured an opponent.

[constable]

Easy flagrant. Hope he enjoys his time off.

I agree- it is always easier to upgrade an INT to a flagrant than it is to downgrade a flagrant.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yet. I can't imagine he's immune from charges simply because he was playing a game at the time he purposefully (making an assumption here) injured an opponent.

He may have "purposely" pushed an opponent or "intentionally" fouled an opponent, but I don't think he "purposely" injured an opponent.

Of course, I could be wrong too.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yet. I can't imagine he's immune from charges simply because he was playing a game at the time he purposefully (making an assumption here) injured an opponent.

The threshold for criminal charges has always been higher in sporting events. You say "purposely injure an opponent" and the lawyer says "minimal contact that unfortunately was at the wrong place at the wrong time".

If this is criminal, then every intentional foul for excessive contact should be reviewed by a DA. This foul was stupid, yes. Criminal? Can't imagine it.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yet. I can't imagine he's immune from charges simply because he was playing a game at the time he purposefully (making an assumption here) injured an opponent.

I can't imagine immune from charges, no. Immune from conviction? Most likely. I think you'd have a real hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did anything more than try to prevent a basket from being scored with utter disregard for the safety of his opponent.

I could see him being held civilly liable on gross negligence but I think battery charges would be very unlikely.

I also have no problem with the editorial decision not to publish his name.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by grunewar

He may have "purposely" pushed an opponent or "intentionally" fouled an opponent, but I don't think he "purposely" injured an opponent.

Of course, I could be wrong too.

Like I said, I was making an assumption. I still say there was no real need to publish the kid's name. And Bainsey's 2nd post on this topic was just overkill.

Originally Posted by bainsey

Right, but that really wasn't my point.

I believe the author either a) simply forget to mention that little detail, or b) intentionally kept his name out, "because he's a kid." At the risk of turning this thread into something else, we either have bad journalism, or an ethical question where I don't agree with the author's (or editor's) choice.

[26 Year Gap]

I could see any out-of-pocket medical expenses being the object of a civil suit. I do not see criminal charges being brought.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I still say there was no real need to publish the kid's name.

It's simple, really. A reporter's job is to report. To leave out a key fact is not doing his/her job.

As for the criminality of it all, I think Rich is dead on. If we start filing criminal charges on every excessive contact in a sporting event, I can't begin to imagine how that would change high school sports as we know it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

It's simple, really. A reporter's job is to report. To leave out a key fact is not doing his/her job.

And how is the name of the fouling player a "key fact?" Really? Maybe we could put him in the stocks when we're done? Some rotten tomatoes may be in order.

I'm done.