BS: Violence in sports.

Subject: BS: Violence in sports.
From: 3refs
Date: 29 May 09 - 08:04 AM

A short time ago a young man was killed in a scuffle with another player during a Rugby game.
The boys got into a physical confrontation with one applying a headlock to the other. Seconds after breaking free from the hold, the one young man grabbed the other and threw him to the ground. As a result of that action, the young man died. Both of them were 15 years old. Unfortunately, the boy was charged and convicted of manslaughter.

Thoughts please.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Wesley S
Date: 29 May 09 - 08:56 AM

Thoughts? If it happens on the ice it's called a hockey game. Three feet off the ice it's considered assult with a deadly weapon. If you're being paid a fortune when it happens it's not a crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 May 09 - 09:06 AM

Ban rugby. Ban hockey, basketball, all forms of football, polo, lawn bowling, road bowling, croquet, tennis, baseball, rounders, cricket, town ball, and the rest of those dangerous "sports."

Only supervised fencing, archery, and shooting sports will be allowed -- the death rate of participants in those approaches zero.

UNLIKE those others.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 29 May 09 - 09:14 AM

I played rugby for many years.. some of it at quite high level.... now in my 60s I am paying the price with the arthritis affecting the bones in my spine which were 'moved' during heavy physical contact...... I was knocked out several times and at one point the medics had trouble bringing me round. If I knew then what I know now.................... I guess I would do the same things over..... I will pay the price but I so enjoyed it while it lasted.   As for violence on the pitch, I was involved in many an angry outburst/fracas/fisticuffs etc but they were always short lived for the sake of the game...... I suppose I could have died from injuries.... but I'm still here! I feel sorry for the lad who lost his life and his family who also suffer but life is full of risks... each day presents hazards... some of us get past them... some don't.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: meself
Date: 29 May 09 - 09:21 AM

Thoughts? I do think it should taken seriously when one player kills another in a game of anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 May 09 - 09:39 AM

I quite agree, meself.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 09 - 09:50 AM

As the judge in the case remarked in his ruling:

"The playing field is not a criminal law-free zone. The laws of the land apply in the same way as they do elsewhere,"

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 29 May 09 - 11:46 AM

Violence in some sports is considered by some to be an essential part of the game. Ice Hockey is incredibly violent and there are those who defend this "goonism" as being just part of the game.
I believe that we must be accounrable for all of actions , wherever we are..sports venues are not beyond the law..nor should they be.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: jeffp
Date: 29 May 09 - 11:54 AM

If I poke at someone on the street with a metal stick, I would rightly be arrested for assault. If I perform the same action on a fencing strip, people applaud. Does that not put the venue beyond the law?

Likewise, tackling people is considered assault unless it occurs on a football field.

Now, if I punch somebody in either of those locations, it is a foul, punishable within the rules. Anything beyond that would probably be prosecuted.

Context is applicable in the definition of what constitutes violence. Those who participate in the sports are probably best suited to determine what is violence and what is within the rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: meself
Date: 29 May 09 - 12:45 PM

To a point - however, if it was your kid killed, and the other participants decided it was the result of violence "within the rules", you might want to take it to a higher authority.

In this case (I have heard very few details), it seems the violence was "outside the rules", but it sounds typical of the kind of scuffle that frequently occurs in contact sports - except for its terrible end. However, if the same scuffle had occurred off the field, with the same result, few would question the manslaughter charge.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 May 09 - 12:52 PM

If I perform the same action on a fencing strip, people applaud.

If you fence, you and your opponent are using blunted weapons and wearing protective clothing and equipment which MUST past quite rigorous testing. Even the soles of your shoes must be tested for slippage.

If, for example, the point of your weapon breaks you or anyone else can and MUST call a halt to the match. If you continue and (let's say) your broken point penetrates your opponents mask and drives into his or her eye and then into the brain (as happened in Rome in 1982, although the broken tip wasn't noticed by anyone), you are liable under the law.

In the case in Rome the death of the Soviet fencer led to the modern emphasis on safety and safety tested equipment.

There's a great deal of difference between fencing and stabbing someone on the street.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: gnu
Date: 29 May 09 - 01:33 PM

I did not know there had been a scuffle. The version I read in the news said it was unprovoked and twenty metres behind the play. It also said the parents of the deceased asked that the youth not be tried.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Tangledwood
Date: 29 May 09 - 06:52 PM

life is full of risks... each day presents hazards... some of us get past them... some don't.

There's a huge difference between risks of accident due to inattention, poor judgement, mechanical failure etc and injury caused by another persons deliberate action.

A friend's brother, I'm guessing would be around fifty, was the victim of a rugby tackle when in his teens. He's lived his life as a paraplegic with limited speech ability. I don't think that he would agree that violence is just a part of the game.

Every week the media reports illegal tackles being made in league games. The perpetrators seem to get a week or two suspension then get straight back to it. Maybe if they faced assault charges their attitude would change?

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 29 May 09 - 07:12 PM

I think the judge scored a home run, a field goal, and ten consecutive strikes!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: meself
Date: 29 May 09 - 07:49 PM

You've got to feel for the convicted kid, though. Many of us have no doubt done as bad or worse, and just happened to luck out.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Uncle Rumpo
Date: 29 May 09 - 09:29 PM

hmmm.. well.. but then its not usually the meek mild gawky speccy kids
who eagerly voluntarily elect to consent to playing macho aggressive dangerous contact sports..???

I loved the thrill of the strategic off the ball behind the refs back tackles when I was 12 years old,
but was so disapointed and angry when my school games teachers discovered I was too short sighted for them to continue
to let me playing playing rugby..


bugger.. I had no choice then but to eventually become a swotty folk musician..

pah !!!


slap up feast at Lord Snooty's gaff when we win the cup !!!




[ok, serious point: the recent BBC documentary hosted by the ex Tory politician Hesaltine on our inate human facination with violence
is well worth a download]

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Janie
Date: 29 May 09 - 10:59 PM

I'm not a big sports fan. Can't live where I live and not get caught up in ACC basketball fever, but even so, not a huge sports fan.

Having said that, I do not like and do not follow Ice Hockey at all because brawls are accepted as part of the game. They may be part of the culture of the game. But it doesn not have to be that way.

Random thoughts....

Over the years, I have noted with dismay in nearly all sports that sportsmanship on the part of both players and spectators is no longer condoned.   I was quite disturbed to hear a father remark during an interview on on the local public radio station that he was teaching his young son to boo both the opposing team, and to boo individual players on the team for which he roots when they make mistakes. I happen to think that as a society we are no longer teaching integrity when winning at any cost is most important.

I'm being redundant with something I posted on another thread recently. (But hey, I'm a redundant kind of gal;^). When I was in high school and college (1960's and early 70's), referees would not hesitate to call a technical foul in basketball when the crowd set up a ruckus while an opposing team player was making a foul shot. Deliberately trying to distract the player was considered very, very bad and unsportsmanlike behavior on the part of the crowd. We were taught to respect the efforts and the person of the opposing team member, even while mightily rooting for the home team. Fights on the basketball or football field were regarded as poor lack of control and never justified, and not as simply to be expected by competitive young men (and women, to the extent that there were athletic opportunities for girls.) These were not just lessons and expectations regarding sportsmanship. It was understood that teaching good sportsmanship represented lessons in self-control and personal integrity.

Winning at any cost was not acceptable.

Those days are gone

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 30 May 09 - 05:54 AM

Ironically, how ever well planned life is... plans fail, either through our own lack of care or someone elses. Life has become cheap... respect minimal for others, not just on the rugby/soccer field... things happen frequently which seem beyond peoples control and people die through anothers action (whether deliberate or not) Each case should be considered carefully to decide what action needs to be taken.... but to my mind.. there is no such thing as an accident... we all use the word with abandon... but someone is always to blame through lack of care..... If someone had died in this manner thirty years ago... what would have happened then??? It would have been dealt with severely....... Everything is being watered down..... offences that I booked people for whilst a cop are now obsolete as the cops have to spend time on 'more important issues'..... The other side of the coin says... who is actually guilty of a crime??? Those who are guilty in our society now are those against whom enough evidence can be found....... if there is not enough evidence.. they walk free... no criminal record..... even for murder/acts of terrorism... etc. I would not condone it as such but we will soon see vigilantes dealing with criminals where others have failed.... it happens to some extent already.. but it will get worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 May 09 - 09:59 AM

Georgiansilver commented, in part:

Those who are guilty in our society now are those against whom enough evidence can be found....... if there is not enough evidence.. they walk free... no criminal record..... even for murder/acts of terrorism... etc.

What do you mean, "now"? That is the nature of the criminal justice system, and has been for hundreds of years. That's why we have trials, to see if there is enough evidence.

If we didn't hew to that standard, then any accusation, even without proof, would be enough to cause punishment.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 30 May 09 - 10:27 AM

People who dislike fighting in hockey are not usually people who understand hockey to begin with.

For one thing, try throwing a punch while on skates, on slippery ice. You will see that a lot of the force of the punch is dispersed by the equal and opposite reaction of the movement of the puncher's feet. The tension released in a hockey fight mitigates against greater violence being done with sticks and skates, etc., by people engaged in a very, very fast sport played by competitive, testosterone-dependent-muscled MEN (and women), in the tight quarters of an ice rink. See a few games in person, at ice level, and you will see what I mean. It looks totally different from a high-mounted TV camera. Fighting is part of the sport because it's part of the sport.

And it bears no relationship to violence before or after (or during) the game on the part of fans, etc., which is usually more closely related to alcohol.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: GUEST,Hi Lo
Date: 30 May 09 - 11:16 AM

I must disagree with the above. Hockey has become increasingly violent over the years, high sticks, slashing, brawling and fist fighting are common. It is not essential to the game. I was once a very dedicated hockey fan and I do understand the game and would love to see it played well and with less violence.To suggest that one sort of violence mitigates against another defies logic. It is this justificatiob for violence that has ruined the game...I no longer eatch.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: meself
Date: 30 May 09 - 11:46 AM

I'm not sure hockey is much more violent than it ever was. Not too long ago, I came across an incidental reference in something I was reading - but danged if I can remember what or where - to a violent death in a hockey game around 1900, in Ontario. The reaction was similar to what it would be today, but, without mass media, on a smaller scale. There was a trial, and, if I remember correctly, the malefactor was convicted, but received a very light sentence.

However, I don't understand what the appeal of hockey fights is - the fans just love'm. The roar of excitement and approval at an NHL game when a fight breaks out mystifies me - and not for any philosophical reasons, but because a hockey fight is so clumsy that it just seems laughable to me. And it really slows down the game. I had long forgotten how exciting hockey can be before I watched the Canada-U.S. women's game in Salt Lake City (on TV). No fights, no commercials, just fast, impassioned hockey.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 30 May 09 - 12:14 PM

HiLo, yer a little out of date.


NHL Rules Changes: Probing The Brave New Hockey World
An assessment of NHL rules changes for the 2005-06 NHL season.
By Jamie Fitzpatrick, About.com

On July 22, 2005, the board of governors approved the most radical set of NHL rule changes in many years. Most of the changes are designed to boost offensive chances and scoring, and several represent a return to rules that were in place years ago. This page looks at the major NHL rule changes for 2005-06, according to the latest media reports.

A new standard of enforcement for existing rules.

      The league promises zero tolerance for hooking, holding, tripping, slashing, cross checking and interference. Players who use their stick or free hand to slow any opposing player will be penalized.
      The Case: Time to put an end to the grappling, wrestling and bear-hugging that sucks the speed and skill from the game.
      Impact: Initially it means way more penalties, which turns the power play into the most important tool on any NHL team. If the new standard is permanent, it will definitely open up the offensive play.
      Down Side: What good is a hockey game if you can't hit anybody? Half the appeal is watching the stars succeed in a physically brutal environment. And who needs the constant parade to the penalty box? Do we want every night to look like the annual NHL All Star Game, always a contact-free, wide open, high-scoring, and painfully boring affair?

More at http://proicehockey.about.com/cs/rules/a/04_rule_changes.htm


Since then enforcement has gotten even tighter, with many newly-clarified rules and continuing exploration and enforcement of rules governing the most likely-to-injure tactics.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 30 May 09 - 12:24 PM

There is no rule in the NHL which bans fighting..there ought to be. Also, the NHL is notorious for NOT enforcing the rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 30 May 09 - 02:03 PM

If you no longer watch, as you said, then there is a lot about the current playing atmosphere that you have missed. Ask any current player and I think you will find that a lot has changed.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: kendall
Date: 30 May 09 - 04:31 PM

In my not so humble opinion, all contact sports are little more than an outlet for testosterone poisoning.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 May 09 - 07:15 PM

Fighting messes up any sport, takes all the skill and the beauty out of it. And when it's a breach of the rules - which it generally is - it shouldn't be treated as part of the game and tolerated. Criminal assault doesn't stop being criminal assault just because it happens on a field of play.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Ref
Date: 30 May 09 - 10:06 PM

Fifteen year olds doing something like that is freakish. It hardly exemplifies rugby, which I played for fifteen years and have officiated for longer than that. Part of the challenge of playing contact sports is to balance the considerable emotional commitment required with respect for one's opponents and the traditions of the game. I expect the young perpetrator was driven by something well outside the game.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: meself
Date: 30 May 09 - 10:37 PM

Funny - I would have said that fifteen-year-olds doing something like that is natural. Mind, I have no experience with rugby - but a lot of experience with fifteen-year-olds.

Ref, are you in UK? Just wondering if there's a cultural difference at work.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Beer
Date: 30 May 09 - 11:32 PM

Your statement is incorrect HiLo. "There is no rule in the NHL which bans fighting..there ought to be. Also, the NHL is notorious for NOT enforcing the rules." There are rules and they are unforced more so than ever before. Hockey in the last 3 years has become a skating and skill game. Sure there are body checks and the "Odd Fight". But not like it was when it was the original six or the terrible years of the 80's and 90's. I gave up on watching for the most part back then. But now! it is one of the fastest sport games and one of great excitement. Like tonight's Red Wing Pittsburgh Penguins game.
Beer (adrien)

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Ref
Date: 31 May 09 - 08:30 AM

I'm in NEW England (US). There may be a cultural difference, though I have refereed U-19 matches here and you do have a point. There seems to be more flare-up potential among the younger guys, perhaps due to the combo of immaturity and testosterone. The action described above sounds like the victim had some peculiar weakness or the perpetrator got in an unfortunately lucky blow, perhaps to the back of the head or neck. All I can say is that, given the inherent violence of the game, there are damn few serious injuries and this is the first death I've heard of. Every year or so, there'll be a spinal injury, usually from a scrum collapse, but the laws and officiating training have cut down on a lot of that and the laws for U-19's are very safety oriented.

Look, people choose to play these rough sports. I have no patience for the "Ooh, they're so rough, this should be banned because one person got hurt!" crowd.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 May 09 - 09:43 AM

I agree that Hockey, when played well, is a beautiful and exciting games to watch. I saw last night's game..fast, exciting, few penalties. All good sport requires discipline, skill, and an innate understanding of the game..all was in evidence last night. It should be that way all the time. If players can control "testosterone" during the play offs, surely they can manage it all season long. Fighting should never be tolerated, in any sport and hockey should not excuse on the grounds of "high testoserone".
    There is a difference between roughness and violence..Hockey is a rough sport, that does not mean it should a violent one. There is a culture of violence in hockey , many players and fans feel that fighting is an essential part of the game..last nights games just goes to show how wrong they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: meself
Date: 31 May 09 - 11:25 AM

Ref: I may have misinterpreted your use of the word "freakish" - if you meant that in the sense of a "freak accident", I concur completely. I took it to mean that you thought the behaviour of the boys was bizarre ...

Another thought that has occurred to me is that boys in the fourteen-to-sixteen age group - those who are in the habit of occasionally duking it out, anyway - are in a transitional phase between low-risk playground fighting and high-risk adult male fighting. The fight that between twelve-year-olds can end with a bloody nose or cut lip, between seventeen-year-olds can end with a broken nose or broken jaw - or worse. Adolescent boys can easily underestimate both their own physical power as well as that of "the other guy". As well, the social and legal disapprobation is more severe for the older-boys/young-men. It is not unusual for boys in that transitional age to have one or two fights, and then to decide that the whole business is distasteful to them - they don't like getting hurt; they don't like hurting others; they don't like the approval of some of their peers and the disapproval of others, etc. That's why you'll often hear some grown man say, "The last time I got in a fight was in high school" - he had that fight, and decided thereafter to avoid fighting.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Ref
Date: 31 May 09 - 05:25 PM

I meant it as a freak accident. Boys that age have a facility for getting into the rough.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: meself
Date: 31 May 09 - 05:33 PM

Okay! We're in agreement then.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: 3refs
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 11:28 AM

The young man was finally sentenced. Conditional Discharge, 1 year probation and 100 hours of community service.
He(now 18yrs old) was selected by an NHL team during their annual entry draft June 26-27. I hope he does well and wish him the best of luck. He has a significant burden to carry for the rest of his life.

I watched my older brother self-destruct upon the sudden death of his son at the age of 12. He blamed everyone, from the ambulance driver to the attending nurses and doctors at Vancouver General. In reality, we were to learn months later, my nephew was dead before he hit the ground. His heart basically ruptured.

The father of the young man who died, has laid the blame for his sons death on hockey coaches. I can't fully understand his grief or the sorrow the family will endure and it may seem that I'm not being very sympathetic. It was a Rugby game, and to blame hockey coaches kind of confuses me!

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 12:31 PM

I missed the little debate about the 'usefulness' of fighting in hockey. No matter what the theory, (sorry, Susan), I don't believe that attitude carries over to kids learning the game. They see FIGHTS, and sticks being used, and what they learn is to be as 'discreet' as possible in the use.

What other sport has designated 'enforcers' on every team to do paybacks for perceived injuries? Didn't the Caps just have a guy barred for many games for intentionally whacking another player?

Yes, I know that any 'sport' that involves physical contact also has a share of testosterone fueled altercations...and even baseball, where contact is theoretically accidental, has 'beanballs' and heavy tagging, followed by "high slides" with spikes. Hockey just assumes it's gonna happen every 5 minutes, and I gather many of the 'fans' expect it and lust for it.

I am like curling, golf and cycling more & more.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: 3refs
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 12:40 PM

"What other sport has designated 'enforcers' on every team to do paybacks for perceived injuries?"

Lacrosse! I'll suggest even more so than hockey! I have a friend who never played lacrosse in his life, but made a Sr A team just because he was a great fighter and knew what his role was!

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 12:45 PM

*grin*...Ok, I believe you...I've watched very little of Lacrosse....isn't that modeled on the Aztecs game where the losers die?

(hey...maybe water polo has 'designated drowners'??

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 12:57 PM

Oh...I will also watch, at odd times, weightlifting, track & field, cross-country like Triathlons, and Scottish Games.

I don't mind "the spirit of competition", I just don't care for 'sports' where trying to injure the other guy is a common part of the routine.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 01:43 PM

Bill, it's not up to your usual standard of logical debate to set the premise wrongly and then do it in. I think bias is seriously impeding your view of what actually occurs in a game you do not watch.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: 3refs
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 03:55 PM

Lacrosse is a Native North American game that's been played for thousands of years by the Huron, Ojibway, Mohawks and many other tribes from this part of world! Sometimes the playing field was the distance between two villages. Although many were killed, death wasn't reserved only for the losers! Sticks of all different sizes and shapes with some playing with one in each hand. Much like Pankration fights, much to be gained and lost by the villages.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: meself
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 04:04 PM

I believe the Aztecs played a proto-basketball type of game. Seemed to have had religious overtones.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: meself
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 04:09 PM

And, yes, lacrosse is a very violent sport. But I don't think that has anything to do with spiritual beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 04:14 PM

?? Susan... *I* set the premise wrongly? Which premise precisely? The one about how "...trying to injure the other guy is a common part of the routine."? I am sure that almost no one would admit they were trying to injure the other guy. I flatly do not believe this 'never' happens.

I 'have' watched it. And I have listened to the commentary from supposedly expert sportscaster about the fights, the high-sticking, the 'enforcers...etc. I have watched guys go out of their way to put a heavy body-check on an opponent who was not near the puck.

I have heard athletes in hockey, as well as football, explain that they just like hitting someone.

Say what you will about my 'understanding' of it: I do not like that temperament.

..the thread was about violence. I see young kids learning sports ..AND fans ...eager for more clashes, fights, etc., than I remember from years ago....mostly before TV began highlighting the 'intense' aspects of the 'game'.
   (perhaps my memory is also suspect, as well as my logic.)

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: bubblyrat
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 06:53 PM

I was talking to a very nice Mexican gentleman on Saturday at Henley Regatta (as you do),and he informed me that,in the Aztec ball-game to which some of you have alluded,it was the WINNERS who were executed !! He was adamant about that, and I guess he should know !!   Axolotl !!(to quote Mad Magazine).

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Peace
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 07:33 PM

I managed to play baseball and football as a young teenager. Never did get into a fight--mostly because if ya did the coach kicked you off the team. Period.

It's I think to do with the fact that kids are encouraged to get 'violent' in sports. Hell, shoe-string tackle a receiver and that just wasn't cause for a fight. Blindside a QB who still had the ball and that wasn't cause for a fight. The shit in kids' sport these days has become grim.

Hockey and football--by their natures--are hard-hitting contact sports. So's Tae Kwon Do. Lose your cool in the latter and usually there's someone around to get ya straight on the purpose of the martial art or martial arts in general.

As long as violence in sport is encouraged by people (parents, coaches, team mates, the public-at-large) it's gonna keep happening.

On occasion the courts send 'messages'. Sending don't mean nothin' Delivering means something. The purpose of most sports is to encourage team work or develop skills on a more personal level. I dislike remarks (that are heralded as great) such as "Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser", etc. Bullshit. Much of life will entail failure on some level. Better learn to deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 07:55 PM

Contact sports are contact sports. Like Peace says, part of the game. Violence is entirely different and anyone who allows it or encourages it should be taken to task, in a court of law if need be.

In football (the pointy ended one), we were taught to hit em hard and help em up. Anyone who took a dirty shot was cut from the team... period.

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: Art Thieme
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 01:20 AM

Actually, there are very few. Mostly you will see brass instruments--and drums. More goddam drums than you can shake a stick at. Really, people, it'd be dumb to have fiddles in those marching bands at half time.

What a silly thread!!!!!

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Violence in sports.
From: open mike
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 01:36 PM

i see that there are some protestors taking a stand against bull fighting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7HvNpccocI