Hit with his own helmet

[pokerplyr80]

Not sure if this was already discussed, but hard to imagine something worse for an on field incident than ripping a man's helmet off and swinging it as hard as you can at his head. Unless a batter charged the mound with a bat in hand and took a swing at the pitcher's head.

Any thoughts on how long Garrett should be suspended? 6 games seems a little light to me if they get 4 just for smoking some pot.

[Jim65]

If it were up to me, rest of this year and all of next year. The NFL needs to send a message.

[dgo71]

There's rightfully some debate as to whether or not this constitutes assault. It's not a normal sports brouhaha once you turn something into a weapon. It was before my time but this reminds me of the stories I heard about Juan Marichal and John Roseboro.

[pokerplyr80]

I'm not sure there should be any debate about whether or not it's assault. But it's my understanding athletes usually don't pursue charges for on field incidents. I remember something a few years back in hockey. McSorley I think slashed another player from behind and did some serious damage. I believe he was charged. I could be wrong though.

Happy Gilmore claimed he took his skate off and stabbed another player in a hockey game. I don't recall if he mentioned any charges.

[Jim65]

I remember when Dino Ciccarelli was charged with assault and I think was sentenced to a day in jail for slashing Luke Richardson.

[seanofjapan]

I'm not sure there should be any debate about whether or not it's assault. But it's my understanding athletes usually don't pursue charges for on field incidents. I remember something a few years back in hockey. McSorley I think slashed another player from behind and did some serious damage. I believe he was charged. I could be wrong though.

Happy Gilmore claimed he took his skate off and stabbed another player in a hockey game. I don't recall if he mentioned any charges.

McSorley was not only charged, but actually tried and convicted over that incident. You can read the judge’s decision in his case here:

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2000/2000bcpc116/2000bcpc116.html?autocompleteStr=Mcsorley&autocompletePos=5

[Chuck9788]

In 1965 Juan Marichal infamously clubbed Dodgers catcher John Roseboro over the head with a bat. He received a 10 game suspension and had to pay Roseboro $7,500. Interestingly, the two later became friends. In fact Marichal was an honorary pallbearer and a speaker at Roseboro's funeral.

https://a3.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=%2Fphoto%2F2015%2F0818%2F05%2Du1484764%2D18_ r2731_2_3130x2773cc.jpg&w=570&format=jpg

[the 'stache]

https://i.imgur.com/DSE61JY.png
It's all fun and games until somebody gets a cracked skull.


One of our attorneys could better answer this, but this, to me, comes down to intent. Garrett's intent was clearly to commit bodily harm beyond the purview of the game. I don't know how you couldn't seriously consider bringing criminal charges.

I don't happen to buy this (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-myles-garrett-s-helmet-attack-likely-won-t-result-n1083186):

"If we're going to be very technical, every single thing that takes place on a football field is assault," said Tammi Gaw, an attorney and athletic trainer based in Washington, D.C., who is the founder of Advantage Rule, a consulting firm that works on sports policy. "But sports, especially contact sports, exist thanks to a doctrine of assumption of risk."

Horse shit. A football player assumes a certain amount of risk that they're going to get hurt within the normal parameters of the game: a knee injury, a broken arm. There exists a real possibility that, if hit just right, a player could be paralyzed. It's happened before, and the NFL has instituted changes to rules to further protect its players. The kind of hit that Jack Tatum levied on Daryl Stingley in a preseason game is illegal as hell now, and for good reason. A player understands the risk of long term issues like CTE, dementia, etc. You're seeing players get out of the game because of these risks. I know of at least two cases where the player stated this was one of the primary reasons they retired.

What happened here didn't take place during normal game play. It just didn't. The whistle had blown the play dead. This was extracurricular-and Garrett took that helmet, and swung it at the Steeler's QB Mason Rudolph with intent to hurt him.

I don't think this will be prosecuted simply because it happened in Ohio. If this had happened in Pennsylvania, and it was a home team's player being targeted, they'd have to escort that idiot Garrett out of the stadium with security.

Peter et all, I'd like to hear your opinion, but this seems pretty cut and dry from a criminal complaint standpoint.

[Republicaninmass]

Dear old dad.used to.mention a hockey player Ted Green. Apparently had his head split open on the ice and it resulted in charges

[seanofjapan]

One of our attorneys could better answer this, but this, to me, comes down to intent. Garrett's intent was clearly to commit bodily harm beyond the purview of the game. I don't know how you couldn't seriously consider bring criminal charges.



I'm not sure about the US, but in Canadian criminal law we have a fairly well laid out bit of case law thanks to the Marty McSorley case in the NHL.

Basically a lot of things that happen in pro sports (one person tackling another in the NFL, one player checking another in the NHL, boxers punching each other, etc etc ) would constitute the crime of assault if they occurred under normal (ie not in a game) circumstances.

To get around that, the law allows that when a player voluntarily plays a game in doing so they are consenting to having those things done to them, which effectively means that those acts are no longer considered assaults.

The main issue therefore is defining what the scope of things you are consenting to is when you voluntarily play a game. In the McSorley case it was made clear that you are consenting not only to whatever the formal rules of the sport allow, but also to any "unwritten" codes of conduct or understanding among the players themselves as to what they consider acceptable or not. The latter may include a broader range of things than the former, so merely violating a formal rule of the sport isn't enough on its own.

The McSorley case involved a play in which McSorley hit Donald Brashear in the head from behind with his stick, causing a fairly serious injury (concussion).

The Court in that case heard evidence not only that McSorley's actions constituted a violation of the NHL rulebook, but also about the generally accepted codes of conduct among players.

McSorley's action was found to violate both. With the latter in particular the Court noted that while slashing was deemed acceptable by players in certain circumstances, this did not extend to blows directed at the head. Also players have certain understandings about etiquette in hockey fights, like when they start and when they finish, and McSorley's blow also occurred in a situation when a fight was not on (he basically snuck up on Brashear and whacked him from behind).

Intent is relevant (and was an issue in the McSorley case too) only if you are arguing that you didn't intend to do the physical act you did (ie it was an accident). McSorley raised this defence, arguing that he had only intended to tap Brashear in the shoulder, but accidentally hit him in the head instead. The Court rejected that based on the video evidence - it was very hard to believe he wasn't going for the head by looking at it.

Looking at the video of Garret, its pretty obvious he was intending to do exactly what he did. Also I'm pretty sure hitting a guy with a helmet is a violation both of the written rules of the NFL and what the players themselves think is acceptable. He probably should be charged.

[the 'stache]

Thank you, Sean.

I wonder if anything will come from this. The NFL essentially blacklists a guy for peacefully protesting before the game during the National Anthem. But a guy removes another player's helmet, and then tries to hurt him? Eh, suspension.

If I were the NFL Commish, that guy would never play in the NFL again. That's the message that needs to get sent to these hot heads.

If I were the DA in whatever Ohio town this game was played in (I don't know the county for Cleveland, offhand), regardless of whether it was my team getting hit or not, I'd have officers waiting after the game to take him into custody. We're losing out morality in this country. At what point do the good people say, "enough", and start fighting back?

[seanofjapan]

T

If I were the DA in whatever Ohio town this game was played in (I don't know the county for Cleveland, offhand), regardless of whether it was my team getting hit or not, I'd have officers waiting after the game to take him into custody. We're losing out morality in this country. At what point do the good people say, "enough", and start fighting back?

I think they could make a criminal case if they wanted to, but comparing it with the McSorley case there are a couple of factual differences that might explain why they wouldn't.

First is that Rudolph isn't without blame in the incident. He tried to rip Garrett's helmet off first, which probably led to Garrett responding in kind (and going way further with it of course). So the attack happened in the context of a fight in which both guys were breaking some rules. In the McSorley case in contrast, Brashear was literally just minding his own business when McSorley attacked him from behind (they had been in a fight earlier in the game, but that had long since ended at the time of the attack). McSorley's actions were thus unprovoked and pre-meditated, whereas Garrett's were more a "in the heat of the moment" thing, which I think most people see as less blame-worthy.

Second is that Rudolph wasn't actually injured in the attack (though of course he could have been). Brashear in contrast was severely injured in the McSorley attack and missed most of the rest of the season (though ironically he would go on to have a long career afterwards, while the incident and suspension effectively ended McSorley's).

These wouldn't necessarily affect the legal situation in a trial, but would probably heavily influence the decision of a prosecutor on whether to lay charges or not. In the McSorley case the public was massively outraged and demanding action against him, whereas the public reaction is, while negative, nowhere near as intense in this case.