Cheap shot foul on dunk temporarily paralyzes Indiana star

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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.

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Adam]

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?

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

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.

Actually, this is a pretty pertinent factoid. Back when I was a junior in HS, we had to raise our hand if we committed the foul. When I was a senior, it became optional. Why? Because the Fed did not want to have the fouler "embarrassed because he did something wrong". I thought it was stupid then, and still do today. But, it leads to what I and others have pointed out multiple times in this thread. Editorial policy is up to the publishers and editors--not reporters or readers. And if they want to run their business that way, it is fine by me. I have a much greater problem with editorializing masquerading as reporting than I do because some kid's name was left out of a story and some guy on an internet forum is upset about it.

[APG]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Actually, this is a pretty pertinent factoid. Back when I was a junior in HS, we had to raise our hand if we committed the foul. When I was a senior, it became optional. Why? Because the Fed did not want to have the fouler "embarrassed because he did something wrong".

Which is all pointless when the announcer tells us, "Foul on number 22...*insert name*...his first. Team's 7th. Number 55...*insert name* at the line shooting two."

Then to add more to the "embarrassment" the scoreboard operator (I know this part is going to get CHS' ears up) puts that foul on the board and we a running count of all the "mistakes" every player as made in the game.

Those announcers and scoreboard operators sure are a "mean" bunch.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Which is all pointless when the announcer tells us, "Foul on number 22...*insert name*...his first. Team's 7th. Number 55...*insert name* at the line shooting two."

Then to add more to the "embarrassment" the scoreboard operator (I know this part is going to get CHS' ears up) puts that foul on the board and we a running count of all the "mistakes" every player as made in the game.

Those announcers and scoreboard operators sure are a "mean" bunch.

When I was wearing a microphone for a HS football game a few years ago, one coach said, "I don't mind you wearing that, (as if I really cared to ask his permission) but please don't embarrass my players by announcing the number of the kids when they get penalties." Now, HS practice is to *still* not do so, but I found it funny in the same way. We tell the whole world who fouls in basketball, but we have to relay the numbers by carrier pigeon (or umpire to wing) in football. Just silly.

Full disclosure: I called my first flagrant foul ever (24 years) this season. The name of the player was not in the article in the paper. Nor were the names of the players who committed technical fouls in the same game.

Edited to add: The first and last name of the player in my game is in the box score just below the article. Matter of fact, now that I think about it, I used the boxscore to help with the report (saved me from digging out the game program).

[APG]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

When I was wearing a microphone for a HS football game a few years ago, one coach said, "I don't mind you wearing that, (as if I really cared to ask his permission) but please don't embarrass my players by announcing the number of the kids when they get penalties." Now, HS practice is to *still* not do so, but I found it funny in the same way. We tell the whole world who fouls in basketball, but we have to relay the numbers by carrier pigeon (or umpire to wing) in football. Just silly.

Full disclosure: I called my first flagrant foul ever (24 years) this season. The name of the player was not in the article in the paper. Nor were the names of the players who committed technical fouls in the same game.

Edited to add: The first and last name of the player in my game is in the box score just below the article. Matter of fact, now that I think about it, I used the boxscore to help with the report (saved me from digging out the game program).

Yeah I never really got that...especially at the high school level, I think just about every kid can handle an announcement stating he committed a foul. If he can't, then he's got a tough life ahead of him.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

Maybe you meant "principals" which means something completely different, although it is not nearly as humorous in this context.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Maybe you meant "principals" which means something completely different, although it is not nearly as humorous in this context.

Good catch, Gap.

Though, I don't know what Dear Abby has to do with this. The most productive thing I could do -- if any -- is simply email the newspaper. Instead, I chose to casually mention it here. That casual nature was lost pretty quickly.

[Dealone]

Regarding the omission of #40's name, I can see reasons on both sides. The player's name matters as important context in the story ie. does #40 have a history of intentional/flagrant fouls ? I am also fine with omitting a juvenile's name as editorial policy. Beyond policy, I would probably have omitted 40's name in this particular case because I think the severe consequences of this intentional foul were accidental and do not merit further punishment or anger focused on a juvenile or his family. Obviously it was a nasty foul but the medical injuries resulted from airborn physics. Outside of the name issue, #40 shoves Etherington on the way up in the dunk (that makes a difference regarding intent). Etherington has a breakaway choice, a two handed full speed slam or an easy layup. Maybe #40, playing in front of a packed home crowd, didn't like the slam option and reacted badly in a regrettable instant. I hope Etherington makes a full recovery and everybody heals from this unfortunate play.

[constable]

I see no reason to omit the kids name. It's a sports story. Up here in Canada we publish the name of all players who get game misconduct penalities in hockey for much more egregious acts than this.

I would hazard a guess that many HS leagues and conferences publish their game sheets and reports online. Why not in the news paper?

[Dealone]

Originally Posted by constable

I see no reason to omit the kids name. It's a sports story. Up here in Canada we publish the name of all players who get game misconduct penalities in hockey for much more egregious acts than this.

I would hazard a guess that many HS leagues and conferences publish their game sheets and reports online. Why not in the news paper?

This story is not about some misconduct penalty; it is about a player suffering a serious medical sports injury. The author of the story assumed editorial opinion by associating the foul to the medical consequences with the phrase 'cheap shot' in the lead. Was it a cheap shot? Was it a hot dog dunk by Etherington? Would Etherington have lost his balance without being pushed from behind? Regarding the foul, how flagrant was it? The foul was committed before the dunk but yet it didn't interfere with Etherington enough to prevent the dunk. Etherington lost his balance after the dunk. Emotions run high with serious medical injuries especially when mixed with phrases like 'Cheap Shot'. #40 is a juvenile under the supervision of his family and his school. Do I associate his and his families name with this emotional story which associates (in my opinion unfairly) his foul with the medical injuries? These are the factors I consider as editor and as editor I make the correct call and omit the kid's name.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Dealone

This story is not about some misconduct penalty; it is about a player suffering a serious medical sports injury. The author of the story assumed editorial opinion but associating the foul to the medical consequences with the phrase 'cheap shot' in the lead. Was it a cheap shot? Was it a hot dog dunk by Etherington? Would Etherington have lost his balance without being pushed from behind? Regarding the foul, how flagrant was it? The foul was committed before the dunk but yet it didn't interfere with Etherington enough to prevent the dunk. Etherington lost his balance after the dunk. Emotions run high with serious medical injuries especially when mixed with phrases like 'Cheap Shot'. #40 is a juvenile under the supervision of his family and his school. Do I associate his and his families name with this emotional story which associates (in my opinion unfairly) his foul with the medical injuries? These are the factors I consider as editor and as editor I make the correct call and omit the kid's name.

An absolute cheap shot. It was not a hot dog dunk...not even close. I doubt the player would have lost his balance but that doesn't matter...the fact is he did due to an unnecessary push. That play was an easy flagrant foul...no doubt about it...I think it was a bush league play.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Good catch, Gap.

Though, I don't know what Dear Abby has to do with this. The most productive thing I could do -- if any -- is simply email the newspaper. Instead, I chose to casually mention it here. That casual nature was lost pretty quickly.

Fixed it for you.

"casually" my azz. You claimed it was bad journalism.