Some papers have editorial policies. And it has nothing to do with reporting quality. Contact them and ask them if it is that important to you. Fouler's names are rarely given in any HS game report other than who may have fouled out of a contest. If A1 win a game with 2 FTs at the final horn, B2's name as the player who sent him to the line is almost always absent. They did not black out the kid's uniform number. If a company has a policy, they expect their employees to follow that policy. And perhaps the reporter DID include the name in the submitted story and it was edited out. I don't know. You don't know. Snaqs doesn't know. Rich doesn't know. The boss may not always be right, but he's the boss.

Seriously, what the he!! difference does having the kid's name in the paper make? There is no reason to publish his name - it is not a "key fact" in any way.

Yes, really! It's the reporter's job!

The next time you report to the table that Team A gets two free throws, and they ask you which Team B player committed the foul, tell the table it's not a key fact.

Bad analogy. The player's name is a key fact to the police - people that enforce the laws and record convictions. The media is permitted to publish information, so they do. But they don't have to.

The fouling player is not only a key fact, it is a pertinent one when it comes to scorekeeping. For a newspaper article, it's neither. A newspaper article is not an official account of the game.

Good grief. Apples and potatoes, dude. I know I said I was done, but this is just too stupid to ignore.

How many times does the fouling player get named in the newspaper article?

Your stupid analogy doesn't take into account the fact that it's no more pertinent than B1's foul in the first quarter, or B2's foul in the 2nd quarter, or A2's foul in the fourth. Are you going to bust the reporter's chops for not naming them as well? How about if he notes all the free throws that were taken by team A? Shouldn't he also say who the fouls were called on?

You folks have missed my point.

When you go to the table to report a technical foul, do you concern yourself with the embarrassment it may cause that player? Of course not. You do your job, and report the facts.

In journalism, it's the same thing. You don't concern yourself with the embarrassment of the principles (with some exceptions of certain crime victims); you merely do your job and report. The only reason one would intentionally omit such information is that uneasy feeling that you may humiliate someone, and that feeling has no place here, no more than it does when we report a foul to the table.

You're making an assumption: that the reporter had any valid reason to report the name of the fouling player. Or that he has a history of reporting the names of the players who commit fouls.

You need to back that assumption up before you start having a fit about the omission in this particular article.

Good lord, Snaqs, you're smarter than that.

Snaq's is correct. Don't call it shoddy journalism unless you have all the pertinent & relevant facts. You've stated an opinion based on your limited knowledge of the whole story. You're calling the integrity of a newspaper writer into question without knowing all the facts. Perhaps the writer had the kids name in his original story, but the editor yanked it. Do you know?

Would I have had a problem if the story included the fouler's name? Not at all. Just as I don't have a problem with the name being excluded. It really doesn't matter whether the kid's name is in the story, or not.

How often does a newspaper article name a kid who got called for defensive pass interference that led to the game-winning touchdown? How many times have you seen a rightfielder get named when he drops a can-of-corn flyball which led to the winning run in a high school regional?

It's in poor taste to name kids who make mistakes during a contest. While this situation is not your run-of-the-mill foul, nor were the results, I'm not sure it rises to the level where the offender should be named with no if's, and's or but's.

Yeah, the argument seems to be there are three types of fouls for purposes of naming the player:
1. typical foul, not worth mentioning.
2. Intentional/flagrant foul that causes injury but isn't a crime. Name the b@stard and embarrass him.
3. Criminal conduct. Leave it out if he's a juvenile.

I would change your football example to a personal foul (maybe roughing the kicker on a punt). Do they ever name these players in reports on high school games?

No one besides you is questioning Snaqs' intelligence...pretty much all of the rest of us are questioning yours on this issue.

You keep saying the kid's name is a key fact and is pertinent, but you have failed to explain why it is a key fact. And the analogy you used does not work at all...

Allow me to weigh in here on the criminal aspect.

Speaking from my experience in law enforcement, charges would not be laid here.

A certain amount of violence is expected during a sport, especially a contact sport. Basketball is a contact sport.

Court systems are too overloaded now to begin with. If I laid that charge in my jurisdiction ( Ontario) it would most likely get laughed out of court. Actually, my supervisors wouldn't send the file to the courts.

Frankly, I made the comment without having seen the video, and admitted I was making assumptions.

Very well. How about this? It's newsworthy.

When's the last time any of us have seen -- not just have called, but have SEEN -- a flagrant foul? They're rare, and people are curious about that, particularly when such an act hospitalizes another.

This game did not take place behind closed doors. This was a public exhibition, and no-one's right to privacy is violated by someone reporting the facts.

Are you telling me that, when you hear of a player getting hurt by a reckless act, you don't want to know who did it?