Hi gents,
I was watching, with interest, the Eagles-Bucs game this afternoon. I believe it was in the 3rd quarter when, with the Eagles in possession, Warren Sapp falls to the ground during a play and remains lying on the ground, on his belly. Later he gets up and walks off and it appears that his eye had been poked by someone.
Of all the things for a player to do to another player I would think eye poking has to be the stupidest and most dangerous of all. It's one thing to grab another player's balls or crotch or butt or even to put a finger in a player's ass crack. But intentionally poking another guy in
the eye is reprehensible. Obviously someone can inflict serious damage to the eye and perhaps even permanent damage, resulting in loss of vision.
I realize football is a violent sport. I understand that the game can be played at a high level of mental intensity but to stick a finger in a player's eye, intentionally, is inexcusable.
I believe the harm done to Sapp was minimal but this kind of action should be addressed and dealt with firmly by the coaching staff, if the perpetrator is identified.

my two cents worth.

Alfonso

I heard the commentators make mention that Sapp was accused of poking one of the PHI offensive linemen in the eye last year during the playoffs. It might have been a vengeful move; not that it's justified.

[quote]Originally posted by Alfonso:
It's one thing to grab another player's balls or crotch or butt or even to put a finger in a player's ass crack.
Alfonso

---

ONLY AFTER THE FIRST DATE!

Seriously, eye-poking is dangerous. A player could probably be sued for lost income.

Maybe a lawyer should address that one.

Yes intentional eye poking is serious and I would think the the NFL has some ruling about it. If there is a rule about it then it is up to the Refs to enforce it. Perhaps they did not see it as intentional but rather inadvertant.

This was in today's Phila. Daily News:

[quote]THE TAMPA BAY Bucs hurled insults and more at Brian Mitchell yesterday. Called him ancient. Called him a dinosaur. Called him a has-been.
When they ran out of insults, they moved on to saliva.

"Warren Sapp spit on me one time," the Eagles' 34-year-old return ace said. "That really got me upset. But I had the calmness to walk away and not do anything stupid.

"They were saying stuff the whole game. But they don't understand that, with me, that kind of stuff doesn't get me rattled. It just makes me want to shove it down their face."

---

[quote]Of all the things for a player to do to another player I would think eye poking has to be the stupidest and most dangerous of all. It's one thing to grab another player's balls or crotch or butt or even to put a finger in a player's ass crack. But intentionally poking another guy in
the eye is reprehensible.

---

Yeah, I'd much rather have a finger stuck up my ass than get my eye poked.

Sportinlife (and all you other Poke-men),

Whether Sapp has legal recourse depends on several factors:

1. Assumption of the risk - if you ski, you may break your leg, if you play hockey you may lose your teeth or end up with a mullet, and if you play football, any number of serious injuries could happen to you, including quadriplegia or death.

2. Exception - if the injury results from an unforeseeable intervening event, or an unreasonable risk, liability can shift to the party that "proximately" causes the injury, which could be the opposing player, the coaching staff (if they "told" the player to poke Sapp), or the facility owner, if the facility contributed to the injury, as in broken hockey glass.

3. Sympathy - before taking a case, any good trial lawyer tries to imagine "selling" the case to a jury. Would a jury feel sympathetic if the poke-er were to take the stand and say "Sapp did it first!" Retribution would not save the poke-er from a legal standpoint, but a sympathetic may find another reason to apportion liability.

I haven't yet heard the results of the case of Orlando Brown, who suffered serious eye injury when a ref's bb-filled bag (accidentally?) hit him in the eye. Though this case does not necessarily feature intent, it would be instructive as to how the AOR defense is faring as to football.

But that's just my two cents.

gj