A bad pitch becomes a felony charge?

The Game Room
1

By now you have all heard this story about the brawl between the Peoria Chiefs and the Dayton Dragons. The video can be seen here.

I am not one to defend using a baseball as a weapon in a baseball brawl, and if you have not seen the video, the pitcher for the Chiefs throws the ball, presumably into the dugout for the Dragons, during the fracas. The ball ricochets off the dugout and hits a fan. (Not shown on the video) I know that there have been events in the major sports leagues that have resulted in criminal charges, but to me this does not seem deserving of one. If Castillo had hit a Dragons player, as he was intending to do, he most likely would have received a few game suspension. I mean, crap, he had already beaned two players in the course of the game with no police involvement, but when he accidentally hits a fan, TPTB have to have him facing a possible felony.

I feel that the franchise should cover the injured fans medical bills, not that they should be required to do so, but should out of good faith. If a fan got hit by a line drive home run, there would be no charges filed, or any need to provide care to the fan.

I had a quick check of the rules and all that is said is that the next batter should be awarded one base.

So, should Castillo face jail time? Is this one of the reasons fans are cautioned to watch the ball at all times? Would the end result be different if Castillo had thrown into the dugout and hit a player?

Mods, I can see three forums that this could belong in, so move as often as needed. :smiley:

SSG Schwartz

2

I meant to put this in Game Room. :smack:
Could someone notify a mod.

SSG Schwartz

3

Bunting this one over to The Game Room.

4

Intentionally throwing a ball at a batter, while illegal within the rules of baseball, would fall under the “assumed risk” doctrine. This wasn’t a pitch of any kind - he wasn’t on the mound, the ball wasn’t in play. It was a very deliberate attempt to injure an unsuspecting party. Were I lord high protector of baseball, that would have been his last throw as a professional.

5

I’m don’t think this is true. Sure, if he hit a batter, that would most likely be all that happened.
But a player in the dugout isn’t a batter, and I doubt the results would have been any different if a player had been hit.

6

He clearly wanted to do some damage to someone who wasn’t expecting it. In the dugout or not, it sure looks like he meant to cave in someone’s skull.

7

It wasn’t a pitch; it was an assault. So the title of the thread is deceptive. Assault is a felony, so no reason not to charge him. It’s not as though brawls are written into the rule book as a normal course of the game:

"5.9.11 If at any moment any player or coach should get into a bad mood, he may initiate a brawl, inviting in as many other players as he should so desire to participate.

5.9.12 Any and all umpires are prohibited from participating in any 5.9.11 event."

I wish they’d mic these brawls. You can just imagine:

“You’re a dork!”
"Am not!
"Are too!
“Well you wear pink underwear.”
“Do not!”
“Do too. Lasorda told me so!”
“Lasorda’s a liar, and you know it!”

It’s ridiculous that these things are allowed to happen. If you started a brawl in a shopping mall, there’d be eight security guards breaking it up in five seconds.

8

This is why they invented the old legal saw “Intent travels with the bullet.”

His intent was to injure SOMEONE and he did.

His act was blameworthy, thus we transfer the intent to injure the intended victim to the actual victim.

Wikipedia to the rescue!

9

I’d say that any injury as part of “normal” play would fall under the “risks assumed during attendance” clauses on the ticket.

A ball thrown in a fight would be “illegal” under normal rules of play, and therefore, the thrower would be liable for injury/prosecution. If a player killed another player during a fight, he should be liable under relevant law as well…

An accidental death, such as might result from a wild pitch that hit a batters head, would be just that, an accident, unless it could be determined that it was an intentional act.

10

So what I am getting from the posts here is that if you throw lame haymakers at a player in uniform, you don’t have to worry about a misdemeanor charge, but if you use a weapon, i.e. a baseball, you are a criminal and must be punished as such?

If that is the case, why doesn’t MLB allow the cops to arrest anyone who charges the mound?

SSG Schwartz

11

Beaning a spectator? That’s beyond the pale, and is deserving of criminal prosecution. Charging the mound is not relevant.

12

Because, like penalties in hockey or football, even things that are outside the rules are still within the scope of participation.

The occasional dustup is one of these.

Charging the mound with a bat or throwing a baseball at someone is not.

13

They’re using their fists, not other weapons.

In any non-boxing sport, fights are against the rules but still considered to be a normal part of a game, and subject to the rules of the sport and not the law. This happened during a game, but like a few well-publicized attacks in hockey, this is being looked at as being so vicious that the law can step in.

As far as charges being filed, I think this is less of a gray area than the McSorley or Bertuzzi incidents. When a player hurts another player during the course of the game it’s hard for me to see how the law is supposed to get involved, but here, you have a fan injured by a deliberate act by a player (although the fan wasn’t the target). From the video, it looks to me like he actually runs toward the Dayton dugout to chuck the ball in there. That’s seriously reckless stuff.

14

check

15

IANAL, but I’d agree that a deliberate throw of the ball at another person outside the normal course of the game, and with the intention of injuring them, is a felony assault. If you hit someone other than the guy you are aiming at, it remains a felony assault. (And it’s also a tort, so the spectator should sue the pants off Castillo)

16

I get the gist of what you’re saying, but…“fights are against the rules but still considered to be a normal part of a game…” seems like a contradiction to me.

17

I am not a lawyer, but isn’t there a clear difference between:

  • throwing a baseball at a highly trained (and highly paid) athlete, who is expecting it (whilst an umpire watches carefully)
  • throwing a baseball at an unsuspecting target
18

Yup. One is part of a game in which there is implied consent. The other is outside of the game, where there is no implied consent. Without the consent, there is assault.

19

The DA could bring charges against a batter for charging the mound (assault & battery), but the DA probably knows that the league authorities will take care of it as an internal matter and the DA will not likley pursue it. Basically, the DA has better things to do than to go after baseball players who get in a little squabble. If the charging of the mound got serious enough, certainly the cops would step in and you might see a prosecution.

20

it’s accepted that it will happen - the pro leagues tolerate it, and have drawn up rules that penalize it. it’s a foreseeable risk that a player is aware of when he steps onto the ice.

as well, players can consent to a fight. in hockey, when both players drop their gloves, that’s a pretty clear indication of mutual consent to a fight. the refs usually let them use up some of their energy before separating them and penalizing them. Mutual consent = no assault.

one of the reason a charge was laid in the Todd Bertuzzi - Steve Moore incident was that Bertuzzi and Moore were both chasing the puck and Bertuzzi started tugging at Moore’s jersey - one of the traditional ways to goad someone into a fight. Moore ignored him and kept going after the puck, so it was clear he was not consenting to a fight.

then Bertuzzi decked him from behind and broke his neck. :eek:

none of these implied consent rules apply to a player intentionally throwing a ball at the opponents in the dug-out, nor to the ball hitting a spectator.