Cheap shot foul on dunk temporarily paralyzes Indiana star

[tref]

Perhaps that could be upgraded?

Fouling from behind when a player is on the ground is one thing, a two-handed shove in the back of an airborne player is clearly non-basketball.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by tref

Perhaps that could be upgraded?

That's what I'm thinking.

Intentional foul at first, but if a stretcher is required, I'm chatting with my partner(s) about a change to flagrant.

By the way, why isn't the Peru player identified in the article?

[tref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That's what I'm thinking.

Intentional foul at first, but if a stretcher is required, I'm chatting with my partner(s) about a change to flagrant.

By the way, why isn't the Peru player identified in the article?

No doubt! What else could we/they possibly be discussing as we wait for the medical assistance...

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That's what I'm thinking.

Intentional foul at first, but if a stretcher is required, I'm chatting with my partner(s) about a change to flagrant.

By the way, why isn't the Peru player identified in the article?

Found it in 15 seconds with a google search.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Found it in 15 seconds with a google search.

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]

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.

Many newspapers withhold names of minors if there could be a pending action. This student may or may not be in that category. I do not have a problem with it either way. If somebody wants to find out who it is, it is pretty simple to do. They did not censor his uniform number. Mole hill.

[JugglingReferee]

The Peru player's Facebook profile is not available.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

The Peru player's Facebook profile is not available.

To him, it is a mountain.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

To him, it is a mountain.

Some reports I've read online claim that this team, and this player as well, have both crossed the line earlier this season. If true, I gather he's already started up that mountain.

[Adam]

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.

So, assuming the perp is a juvenile, you're ok with publishing his name? I agree with the decision to leave it out.

[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.

[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.