A TORT THEORY ARGUMENT FOR AN AUTOMATIC EJECTION AFTER AN ILLEGAL HIT.

October 19, 2010 at 8:25 PM · Football

A TORT THEORY ARGUMENT FOR AN AUTOMATIC EJECTION AFTER AN ILLEGAL HIT. I have had arguments with Nick about what should happen after a player is hit in the head by a pitch. I favor an automatic ejection. Nick points out that this kind of thing can happen by accident. I think that in baseball and in football, requiring an umpire or referee to say that there was intent to injure makes it less likely that there will be a penalty. In tort law the argument is often made that the person who is in the best position to prevent an accident is liable for the accident. It can be bad luck if a player is penalized for initiating accidental helmet-to-helmet contact, but it’s also bad luck for the recipient, who is, if he is defenseless, unable to prevent it.

4 comments

Dick Weisfelder October 20, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Can you apply this argument to a “sport” like boxing?

Philip October 20, 2010 at 12:20 PM

With boxing, the concept of consent predominates. Boxing is tough for me because I have enjoyed watching it, but I know I shouldn’t.

Dick Weisfelder October 21, 2010 at 5:01 PM

But football and hockey players know the risks of their games too, so they have implicitly accepted the risk of injury also. Indeed whether someone is suspended or pays a fine is a judgement call regarding the boundaries. Would an injured player likely be successful in a suit against Harrison because the league fines or suspends him?

Anonymous October 21, 2010 at 8:13 PM

Phil says: I was thinking of an argument I’ve been having with Nick, and was unclear. I am not thinking of any legal claim in a court of law. I was thinking about how baseball or football should make their rules and enforce them.I have argued to Nick that there is thought to be a requirement in baseball that an umpire determine the pitcher’s intent when he hits a batter. Umpires are reluctant to say that. I suggested to Nick that the call be automatic. Nick objects that a batter can be hit by accident. It’s at that point that I make the argument that if there is an accident, the batter —or the defenseless player who is injured— is already penalized by the injury. Why not impose a real penalty on the player who could have prevented it.
I do agree that a quarterback assumes the risks that arise under the rules of the game as enforced. The helmet-to-helmet rule is not a clear rule because the rule is on the books, but not effectively enforced.