Why don't athletes get criminally prosecuted for getting into fights?

Question

it is a crime. assault and battery. in hockey mainly it happens all the time. how is that legal.

lets take basketball then for example, the fight in which carmelo punched nate robinson, in basketball there is an assumption of risk in which you can get hurt by somone shooting and the defender slaps and breaks someones risk but there shouldn't be an assumption that you will be punched in the face because that IS NOT PART OF THE GAME, THEREFORE ISN'T PART OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK

boxing and wrestling and fighting sports i can understand b/c you assume the risk of being punched but in sports like basketball, baseball etc. i don't think that the assumption of risk is being punched in the face.

as for no one pressing charges, that answers the civil law part of it but what about CRIMINAL law? punching someone in the face falls under both civil and criminal law. civil law is a private wrong against an individual person and there are law suits for that. criminal law is when crimes are committed and assault and battery is a crime

Answer 1

I'm not sure about the exact wording, but when participating in a sporting event, athletes are generally free from prosecution for their actions if they are considered within the normal bounds of the sport.

For example: Boxing, tackling in football, even fights in hockey.

If they exceed the rules, they still generally aren't prosecuted because the league will fine and impose their own punishment and that keeps the prosecutors happy.

There have been cases though when someone goes to far and finds themselves in trouble with the legal system.

Answer 2

No one pressed any charges ? No crime was committed , It's different than a public fist fight .

How is that legal

The answer to this question is that for the professional athletes, it is part of the game. The assumption of risk doctrine states that a participant in an activity in which there is contact or a chance of injury assumes the risks normally associated with that activity.

However, in professional hockey, fighting is considered part of the game. Teams have enforcers, referees allow players to brawl for a minute or so before interfering and fighting in most cases is met with only a minor penalty (the same as tripping). In very few cases will a fight result in a player's ejection from a game, and in even fewer instances will it result in a suspension. This means that the league sanctions the practice, and in some cases, even encourages it (as it puts people in the seats). Thus, when professional hockey players skate onto the ice, they assume the risk of certain injuries associated with fighting, hard checks and other similar conduct.

Answer 3

It is definitely assumption of risk. Fight are an established part of certain sports culture. So by playing sport the athlete waives liability for assault.
Just think why does not police show up at Vegas, break up a professional boxing match and arrest everyone involved?
That being said there are certain bounds, and sometime athletes DO get charged for assault for vicious hits on unsuspecting players.
For example see this cite for a hokey player being convicted for assault:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_McSorley#Assault_Incident

P.S.
I will still go with assumption of risk, as fights can be a part of game CULTURE, they ca still be acceptable.
Second: Prosecutors do not HAVE TO prosecute every case. They have murders and rapes to deal with. So often times even if they CAN bring the charge, they simply won't bother. Sure a simple assault is a crime something like Class 4 misdemeanor punishable by 100$ fine or something like that. But by charging athlete you will have to deal with assumption of risk defense, self-defense (for fighting back), provocation defense. etc etc. etc. So most of the time it is not worth it fo the DA to bring the charge as it will just waste the court time. So sometimes in egregious cases charges are brought, but most of the time when the injury is no more then a small bruise and a bruised ego, the DA will let the matter slide, Just like a cop might let go a speeder who was like 4 MPH over the speed limit.

Answer 4

The rules of the game and the law states boundaries between playing and fighting. It's pretty clear when a football player tackles someone who has the ball, that's the nature of the game. Same with hockey, trying to get the puck, etc.

The law might come into play when the game is no longer active, and a player stops and starts punching etc, the other player. = Now you have battery. The athletic association of the appropriate sport has rules on this too. A player who is victim to direct assault/ battery can sue the other player for injuries.

The NHL, NFL, etc, can fine or suspend players for such acts.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. This is not legal advice.

Answer 5

Generally, a fight between two players is considered "Mutual combat", which actually isn't illegal.

There have been a "few" prosecutions, but not many. It's more common at the lower, amateur levels.

In one famous case, though, Marty McSorley of the Bruins was criminally prosecuted for hitting Donald Brashear of the Canucks across the back of the head with his stick, putting him in the hospital. It wasn't a "mutual combat" situation - McSorley came up to Brashear from behind and just dropped him with a "baseball" type swing to the back of the skull.

Richard

Answer 6

If it comes to blows, the person hit can decide if they're going to press charges or not. I'm guessing most times they don't. And if they do go to jail, they can afford bail.

Answer 7

Assumption of risk. Its not assault and battery. Same with Boxing and pro wrestling.

Answer 8

Money talks!

Answer 9

It is truly money

Answer 10

One word...Money!!