Ct.); [1991] 4 O.R.3d 788, 798 (Ont. Ct. 1976).original punch to the throat by the victim was consented to by the defen-dant as part of the game, since the act of tackling in a football game mayoften involve legitimate contact that could easily be interpreted as a However, the court held, the defendant’s punch to the eye wasan unmistakable act of intentional aggression and therefore could notthat the defendant had not reasonably believed that he was vulnerable to The court based this finding on evidence showing thatwhen the defendant struck the victim, the defendant was up on one kneevaluable example of what acts a sports participant consents to when heMore than a decade passed before the next reported American casesconcerning criminal liability for participant-on-participant sports vio-been extremely rough, and one player had already been ejected for vio- After a fracas erupted on the court over a foul (and during atimeout), the defendant, who was standing on the sideline, assaulted twoplayers from the opposing team who were also on the sideline and thensault and appealed, arguing that he fell within Iowa’s exception fromassault for voluntary participants in sporting events.that because the incidents occurred during a timeout, and because thedefendant and two of his victims had been on the sidelines, not playing atthe time, they were not “voluntary participants in a sport” at the time ofperson doing any of the above enumerated acts [assaults], and such other person, are voluntaryparticipants in a sport, social or other activity, not in itself criminal, and such act is a reasona-bly foreseeable incident of such sport or activity, and does not create an unreasonable risk ofserious injury or breach of peace, the act shall not be an assault.”the incident, and therefore the exception was inapplicable.reasoned that there was simply “no nexus between the defendant’s actssion on this determination, it added in dicta that the defendant’s actionswere furthermore not a reasonably foreseeable incident of the sport andcreated an unreasonable risk of serious injury or breach of the peace.and had been fouled by the victim throughout the game.players were running down the court side by side, the defendant punchedthe victim in the face, later claiming that the victim had made a wavingthree places and had to be wired shut for about six weeks.court rejected the defendant’s request to use jury instructions incorporat-ing a “reasonably foreseeable hazard” standard for consent to assault by The trial judge ruled that the defendant could notclaim consent because his conduct “exceeded what is considered withindecision not to allow the defendant to claim consent but disagreed withthe rules-based standard that the trial court employed.court rejected that standard as too limiting and instead appeared to sidewith the defendant by adopting the Model Penal Code’s standard that thedefendant’s conduct must be a “reasonably foreseeable hazard” of the However, applying the standard to the facts of the case, thecourt found that even taking the defendant’s version of the events as true,the assault was not reasonably foreseeable and therefore violated the The court reasoned that “[t]here is nothing in the game ofbasketball, or even rugby or hockey, that would permit consent as a de-The only modern American prosecution of a professionalfigure for participant-on-participant violence during a game occurred inState v. Shelley, 929 P.2d 489, 490 (Wash. Ct. App. Some risks are environmental – hockey players who fail to wear protective equipment, for example, are at greatly increased risk for injury. In the end, it is the proper discretion ofthe local prosecutor that is tantamount in order to attain a successful bal-ance between allowing sports to be played with intensity and vigor andprotecting society and players from unnecessary violence.... For example, why do Canadian jurisdictions prosecute misconduct during a hockey game substantially more than the American counterparts? Ct. 1976).claim was unreliable because the defendant’s witnesses’ testimony was inconsistent with hisPeople v. Freer, 381 N.Y.S.2d 976 (Suffolk County Dist. THE VIABILITY OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS . NCJRS abstract 160786Canadian journal of psychiatry. Prov. Section One surveys the widespread violence that has permeated most major sports and explains how sports violence adversely affects the public interest. For example, premier hockey playerBobby Orr produced a book for young hockey players in which he instructed youngsters on thecould release their own aggressive urges simply by watching contact sports, some researchshows just the opposite. Ct. 1970).this standard is very limiting and unduly impinges on game play.tainly, some actions in violation of game safety rules (such as clipping infootball) are part and parcel of the game and are not necessarily indica-unlikely that a jury would convict a player for violation of a game safetyrule where no serious injury had been suffered by the victim.The Model Penal Code sets its standard for consent in sports in theconstitute an offense because it causes or threatens bod-ily injury, consent to such conduct or to the infliction ofsuch injury is a defense if: . . (1972), had been proposed but failed in 1972. Karon also maintains that someprosecutors might be reluctant to bring sports violence cases because of the “community sub-group rationale,” which posits that illegal activity pervasive within a particular subgroup ofand resources for a prosecutor with a highly uncertain return on theThe threat that violence in sports poses to our society through itslong-term influence on youths and spectators is unmistakable.quently, it is imperative that some responsible entity take measures toabate the unnecessary violence that has pervaded the world of sports.When internal league regulation ceases to adequately curb the problem,means by which to send the message that society will not tolerate acts oftions contend that criminal sanctions for sports violence will bring aboutthe downfall of sports, as participants will feel constrained from playingrelies on the assumption that the state will prosecute every technicalsports battery rather than only the most egregious attacks.solving the problem of excessive sports violence through criminal prose-tained through the excessive acts of violence displayed by MartyMcSorley and Kermit Washington. at 702.
One critic also noted that the bill used circular definitions and created The Iowa consent-to-assault exception provides in relevant part “that where the, the defendant was playing in a pickup basketball game, at 841.