OT -- Fans on the field

[Scott Kominkiewicz]

I just viewed a video clip of a fan running on the field of a Packers game and running away with the ball.  Not surprisingly, he was tackled by security personnel.  

http://www.beer.com/beer.com-Content_C-section_id-1131139653596_video.html?waveid=1603

Granted, any spectator who jumps on any field and interrupts play is a wrong-doer, but why do players and security types seemingly always tackle the culprit?  It looks like assault to me.  I'd love to see one of these spectators who gets tackled press charges.  Just once.

[French Rage]

They probly cover any lawsuits in the ticket fine print.  As for tackling, usually these fans arent in the condition where you cna politely ask them to stop and come with you.

But that Cincy-GB clip is a great one.

[cornelldavy]

Since a fan running on the field is a trespasser (I assume he would be considered one, since there are all kinds of warnings both on the ticket and over PA systems), I don't think a security guard could be held liable or found guilty for assault/battery as long as he didn't use an unreasonable amount of force to get the fan off the field. Maybe if the fan gets tackled and then security gives him the Rodney King treatment, or if the fan appeared willing to leave quietly but was still tackled, then he'd have a case.

By the way, not all fans who run on the field are tackled. I was at the Eagles game last week where a fan sprinkled his mother's ashes on the field, and he willingly let security cuff him and lead him away with no resistance. Also, I doubt fans like Morganna back in the '80s ever were tackled by security (although security might have wanted to).

[canuck89]

I agree (I think).  If the fan does decide to call it quits, and lay down and such, then there will be no physical assault by the cops/security.  However, if he decides to keep running, one tackle is okay.  He is deemed a threat due to the illegal behavior and should be stopped from touring the field.  Though in most cases it is a drunk looking for attention, you never know when something bad could happen (See Kansis City base coach, Gamboa: beat in Chicago by two drunk fans).

[Ben Rocky '04]

Does some drunk ass hole really count as a fan if they disrupt the game like this?  Running onto the field is more similar to 'Chris Mascaro'-like behavior: a desperate plea for attention, than love-of-the-game behavior like cheering or wearing your team's jersey.  It seems to me that the term 'fan' doesn't apply to someone who is more interested in embarrassing themselves than supporting the team on the field.

[cth95]

There is definitely an unknown risk from anyone running onto a playing surface, even though most are just drunken, attention-starved idiots.  Don't forget, Monica Seles was stabbed in the back by some wacko in the middle of a tennis match.  I think whatever  effort is needed to restrain someone is justified.

[KeithK]

One of favorite idiot fan moments occurred at a Yankees-A's game in Oakland this season.  Some moron jumped on the field, was chased around for a few minutes and seemed to be about to get away (!) as he'd outdistanced security and started to climb the outfield fence.  A's right fielder Eric Byrnes grabbed the guy and yanked him down from the wall, preventing him from "escaping" (yes, he probably would've been grabbed later anyway, but still).  I love the fact that he was willing to stop that idiot, rather than just standing and watching.

Well, actually that might be second to the reaction to the Gamboa assault in Chicago.  The players basically kicked the s--- out of the idiots who jumped the KC coach.  About what they deserved.

[billhoward]

You tackle the fan because he trespasses on the field, and the jerk, er, fan gets hurt, yes, you might wind up with a lawsuit. The stadium will probably win the lawsuit, but it could be a close call. The back of the ticket could say "We reserve the right to shoot fans if they run on the field," but it wouldn't survive a challenge. Question is, what else wouldn't? Reserving the right to use "necessary force" to get someone off the field? Making a thousand students go through one door in search of hockey tickets with only a handful of security officers on hand?

Tackling an unruly fan has a 1 in 80 chance the fan gets injured, 1 in 60 if he's drunk. Waiting one extra minute (game delay) to have more security and police officers herd him off the field and corner him, then subdue him, that has a 1 in 600 chance of injury. I made the odds up, but it's probably something like that. There is a risk when you tackle someone (risk to the tackler, too) and old tales notwithstanding about drunks surviving accidents better because they're looser, I don't believe it's true. (It's definitely not true once the injured drunk gets to the ER because intoxication messes unpredictably with proper anesthesia levels.) If the stadium knows about the risk or should have known, and they go ahead anyhow and tackle the fan, and the fan gets injured, sooner or later there'll be a lawsuit that prevails.

(Personally, I'd like to see the fan get taken down by a taser, applied if at all possible to the groin area, at which point a rope is fastened under his arms and he's lifted out by chopper, dangling 50 feet below. Recidivism would go down and it'd make ESPN Highlights for sure. If you're gonna risk a lawsuit, make it worth your while. I'd rather see that game than go to another Peyton Manning bobblehead day.)

[ugarte]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

 You tackle the fan because he trespasses on the field, and the jerk, er, fan gets hurt, yes, you might wind up with a lawsuit. The stadium will probably win the lawsuit, but it could be a close call. The back of the ticket could say "We reserve the right to shoot fans if they run on the field," but it wouldn't survive a challenge. Question is, what else wouldn't? Reserving the right to use "necessary force" to get someone off the field? Making a thousand students go through one door in search of hockey tickets with only a handful of security officers on hand?

Tackling an unruly fan has a 1 in 80 chance the fan gets injured, 1 in 60 if he's drunk. Waiting one extra minute (game delay) to have more security and police officers herd him off the field and corner him, then subdue him, that has a 1 in 600 chance of injury. I made the odds up, but it's probably something like that. There is a risk when you tackle someone (risk to the tackler, too) and old tales notwithstanding about drunks surviving accidents better because they're looser, I don't believe it's true. (It's definitely not true once the injured drunk gets to the ER because intoxication messes unpredictably with proper anesthesia levels.) If the stadium knows about the risk or should have known, and they go ahead anyhow and tackle the fan, and the fan gets injured, sooner or later there'll be a lawsuit that prevails.

(Personally, I'd like to see the fan get taken down by a taser, applied if at all possible to the groin area, at which point a rope is fastened under his arms and he's lifted out by chopper, dangling 50 feet below. Recidivism would go down and it'd make ESPN Highlights for sure. If you're gonna risk a lawsuit, make it worth your while. I'd rather see that game than go to another Peyton Manning bobblehead day.)
[/q]Holy crap. Do you have any more completely made up probabilities to add?

If a person flees from police, the police can use necessary force to capture him. If they say stop and he doesn't stop, they can tackle him. End of story.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]ugarte Wrote:

Holy crap. [/q]

Yeah, that's an appropriate response to much of what bill posts :-P

[Beeeej]

[Q]ugarte Wrote:
 [Q2]billhoward Wrote:
Tackling an unruly fan has a 1 in 80 chance the fan gets injured, 1 in 60 if he's drunk. [/Q]
Holy crap. Do you have any more completely made up probabilities to add?
[/q]

Not to mention that drunk people are generally at lesser risk of injury than sober ones experiencing similar traumas, not greater.

Beeeej

[billhoward]

[Q]Beeeej Wrote: ... Not to mention that drunk people are generally at lesser risk of injury than sober ones experiencing similar traumas, not greater.[/q]Conventional wisdom often holds that drunks are looser or more relaxed and better able to withstand injuries. That may not be grounded in fact. For car accidents, for instance: In1984, the University of North Carolina reported a direct correlation between level of intoxication and severity of injuries in auto accidents, after factoring out age, health, speed of accident, etc. Drunk accident victims go into shock more readily, anesthesia is harder to administer, and alcohol inhibits the body's tendency to protect against blood loss. All other things being equal, drunks were 10 times more likely to die in accidents, UNC reported.

A unrelated 1997 report in the Journal of Trauma appeared to back away from some of those those earlier conclusions. It said that in lab studies with animals "most experimental studies indicate that alcohol can adversely affect the degree and outcome of injury" and also said to be careful extrapolating results to humans. None of the research, I believe, says alcohol lessens the degree of severity.

[Liz '05]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

 [Q2]Beeeej Wrote: ... Not to mention that drunk people are generally at lesser risk of injury than sober ones experiencing similar traumas, not greater.[/Q]
Conventional wisdom often holds that drunks are looser or more relaxed and better able to withstand injuries. That may not be grounded in fact. For car accidents, for instance: In1984, the University of North Carolina reported a direct correlation between level of intoxication and severity of injuries in auto accidents, after factoring out age, health, speed of accident, etc. Drunk accident victims go into shock more readily, anesthesia is harder to administer, and alcohol inhibits the body's tendency to protect against blood loss. All other things being equal, drunks were 10 times more likely to die in accidents, UNC reported.

A unrelated 1997 report in the Journal of Trauma appeared to back away from some of those those earlier conclusions. It said that in lab studies with animals "most experimental studies indicate that alcohol can adversely affect the degree and outcome of injury" and also said to be careful extrapolating results to humans. None of the research, I believe, says alcohol lessens the degree of severity. [/q]


However, we're talking about being tackled by security guards, not getting into a car crash, no?  Possibly quite different, especially as the severity of the car crash is presumably linked to a drunk's impaired ability to drive.

[billhoward]

[Q]Liz '05 Wrote: However, we're talking about being tackled by security guards, not getting into a car crash, no?  Possibly quite different, especially as the severity of the car crash is presumably linked to a drunk's impaired ability to drive. [/q]You ask a fair question about the injuries suffered being tackled while drunk as opposed to injuries received while wrapping one's car around a tree. The medical literature is light on statistical trends of football and soccer hooligan-running-on-the-field injuries relative to their BAC. Ditto for light plane crashes relative to blood alcohol content: crashed plane at 0.01% BAC, typical injury, fatal; crashed plane at 0.05% BAC, typical injury, fatal; crashed plane at 0.06% BAC, typical injury, fatal; etcetera. I referenced the most widely studied area instead.

Cornell's supposed to teach us to be skeptical. Just because a lot of people say something is so, doesn't make it so. My point was, If somebody says that "everybody knows" drunks get hurt less in accidents, you ought to wonder if that's really the case.

The point of the two medical studies was that they had, they said, allowed for the differences you wonder about. For instance, they normalized for the speed of the impact (maybe that's what people people call the severity of the crash), seat belt usage, etcetera, the only variable left was blood acohol content. The first study said: huge link. The second study said: Definitely the case with animals, we're not so sure about humans, and more research is needed.

All this research was about what happens once the accident happens. Even the second, more skeptical study said that the liklihood of being accident-prone goes up with BAC. A sober guy leans over the balcony at a Stones concert and gets jostled, he holds on; a drunk gets jostled and he winds up one floor down with broken arms. I would extrapolate the conclusion that if a drunk football-field-crasher gets tackled and falls, his higher BAC increases the odds he'll get hurt if he's about to land on a stadium bench or gutter or even if his elbow strikes the turf at an odd angle. My gut reaction (like everyone else's, I think) is "serves the guy right and it will make good film at 11:00," but that reasoning is not always going to stand up in court.

A couple deaths and brain injuries (and resulting lawsuits) convinced colleges they can't let students tear down goalposts and they can't just write a note in the program saying  "Please don't tear down the goalposts because they may fall on your head and render you a vegetable." The stadium proprietor has to do a better job anchoring and then protecting the goalposts. Cornell is so lucky there were no injuries at the hockey ticket line / stampede this year. There was a time when fans "knew" they were at risk sitting behind the goal at a hockey game. A couple fatalities later, including sadly one at Cornell, the presence of nets indicates the laws of responsibility have changed.

[marty]

[Q]Scott Kominkiewicz Wrote:

 It looks like assault to me.  I'd love to see one of these spectators who gets tackled press charges.  Just once.[/q]

So you can either go to law school and sue or jump on the field and sue...... ::screwy::

Now that I've reflected on this, it looks like narcissism to me.  ;-)