Cheap shot foul on dunk temporarily paralyzes Indiana star

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

Just for the record, I'm with Rich. It's just a part of the game. Hell, if you're gonna name a coach that gets tossed...like Lavin t'other night....why not a player?

[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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And how is the name of the fouling player a "key fact?" Really?

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.

[26 Year Gap]

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.

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.

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.

[rockyroad]

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.

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.

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.

[rockyroad]

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?

So you are going to wait to see if the fouled player is injured badly to decide whether to eject the fouling player?

Please tell me that is not what you meant.

On this play, I get together with my partners immediately, tell them we need to eject the fouling player, and then take that information to the table as the injured player is being tended to...no way do I wait to see how badly the kid is hurt. This is an immediate ejection.

[NoFussRef]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So you are going to wait to see if the fouled player is injured badly to decide whether to eject the fouling player?

Please tell me that is not what you meant.

On this play, I get together with my partners immediately, tell them we need to eject the fouling player, and then take that information to the table as the injured player is being tended to...no way do I wait to see how badly the kid is hurt. This is an immediate ejection.

You beat me to it.

I would never make a call based on the severity of the AFTERMATH, rather the severity of the ACTION. Just as I would never "downgrade" or go no-call on a flagrant because the player fouled did not get injured.

I certainly agree also, that no good could come from keeping him in the game- HE IS GONE.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So you are going to wait to see if the fouled player is injured badly to decide whether to eject the fouling player?

Please tell me that is not what you meant.

On this play, I get together with my partners immediately, tell them we need to eject the fouling player, and then take that information to the table as the injured player is being tended to...no way do I wait to see how badly the kid is hurt. This is an immediate ejection.

Fair enough, Rock. Thanks for the wake-up call.

[26 Year Gap]

The ONLY reason to get together is to see who is going to report it since it appeared to be a double whistle.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

The ONLY reason to get together is to see who is going to report it since it appeared to be a double whistle.

Some places get together after anything that is out of the ordinary. Ts and DQs, for certain, INTs possibly. They do it so that all are on the same page, etc.