Oakland fans are the worst in baseball

[TheRake]

In case you needed proof

Here's some (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=knight-wildnightwildwin&prov=knight&type=lgns)

Here's some more (http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0420/1541704.html)

They also show no interest in supporting thier 1st place team. 15,000 fans showed up for last nights game with big playoff implications. They are currently 20th in the A.L. in attendance (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance?sort=home_avg&year=2004&seasonType=2)

BTW, Frank Francisco should be thrown out of baseball for his retaliation last night, but it was not unprovoked.

TheRake

[ThaSaltCracka]

The A's have been playing for a bunch of uninterested fans for years, not to mention that their in Oakland and well, there you go.

[scotnt73]

im not a big baseball fan but from what ive seen from football and basketball i would wager that philadelphia fans would prob be up there as well. nasty s.o.bs /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[J.R.]

BTW, Frank Francisco should be thrown out of baseball for his retaliation last night, but it was not unprovoked.

Getting ragged on by fans when on the road is part of the deal when you are a professional. Even if he is just a rookie he makes loot. The attack was clearly unprovoked, words don't justify a physically violent response with a metal object used as a weapon.

You don't launch a metal chair, using two hands, at the people who make your exorbitant salary possible, especially when the chance you hit an innocent bystander (as happened here) is so great. I hope he goes to jail, what he did is absurd, and even more so given the public nature of how it unfolded.

Its called aggravated assualt at a minimum. I hope both he and the Rangers are sued as well, as its this type of behavior that justifies an award of punitive damages. You can't act like an ass and threaten the well being of fans because somebody ran their mouth. MLB policy in each stadium premits the removal of unruly fans, and the reason is to prevent a player from taking things into his own hands. The Rangers handled this in a very unprofessional manner (and perhaps the A's and stadium security did as well) and all parties should have to deal with the consequences.

[Boris]

The attack was unprovoked buddy. Brocail was lucky he got restrained. Francisco is done for this year and next. I think maybe Texas is still pumping the steroids.

[TheRake]

[ QUOTE ]
Getting ragged on by fans when on the road is part of the deal when you are a professional. Even if he was a late season callup he makes loot. The attack was clearly unprovoked, words don't justify a physically violent response with a metal object used as a weapon.

[/ QUOTE ]

The situation had escilated beyond just words prior to the chair throwing incident. The article seems to be vague on this point. I don't think any punches were thrown, but there was definite pushing and shoving as well as people needing to be restrained (both fans and players). From my understanding the Rangers bullpen had asked security several times during the game to get the situation under control.

[ QUOTE ]
You don't launch a metal chair, using two hands, at the people who make your exorbitant salary possible, epscially when the chance you hit an innocent bystrander (as happened here) is so great. I hope he goes to jail, what he did is absurd, and even more so given the public nature of how it unfolded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree Francisco should be severely punished for his actions. His actions were absolutely appalling.

[ QUOTE ]
MLB policy in each stadium premits the removal of unruly fans, and the reason is to prevent a player from taking things into his own hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I stated, it was my understanding from watching the game last night that several requests were made to security to get the situation under control. Nothing was done until it was to late.


I am not condoning what happened in any way, but Oakland fans have a history of behavior that seems to go beyond simple heckling of the visiting team. These types of things are bound to happen eventually when security allows this kind of behavior.


TheRake

[nolanfan34]

ESPN's reporting that Francisco has been arrested by Oakland police for aggrevated assault and battery. I haven't seen the highlights of this yet...but it sounds crazy. What would propel someone to throw a chair into the stands? That's crazy.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
ESPN's reporting that Francisco has been arrested by Oakland police for aggrevated assault and battery. I haven't seen the highlights of this yet...but it sounds crazy. What would propel someone to throw a chair into the stands? That's crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who does he think he is, Bobby Knight?

[ThaSaltCracka]

here's some pictures from www.espn.com (http://www.espn.com)
Check out #4 and #5
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=240913111#
click the photos link.

[RcrdBoy]

[ QUOTE ]

Getting ragged on by fans when on the road is part of the deal when you are a professional. Even if he is just a rookie he makes loot. The attack was clearly unprovoked, words don't justify a physically violent response with a metal object used as a weapon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely it doesn't, but this feeling that fans have the right to say whatever they want because they pay the salary of players in nonsense. Just because someone makes a lot more money shouldn't allow others to verbally abuse them any way they choose.

A few years ago a guy in Portalnd heckled Vernon Maxwell about his young daughter that had died (like less than a year old, maybe still born) and he ran into the stands and punched the guy. Wrong to do so? Yes. Understandable? Yes.

I'm not defending what happened in Oakland, but when fans can jump a wall, attack someone on the field, and not spend any appreciable time in jail, why should it be different for players?

As fans get closer to the action more security needs to be in place to keep them from coming into contact with the players.

In addition, security should 86 people at the first sign of abusive behavior.

[ QUOTE ]

You don't launch a metal chair, using two hands, at the people who make your exorbitant salary possible, especially when the chance you hit an innocent bystander (as happened here) is so great. I hope he goes to jail, what he did is absurd, and even more so given the public nature of how it unfolded.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. He should go to jail. He's an idiot, clearly. Nothing to gain and everything to lose in a situation like this.

[sfer]

They used to boo Mike Schmidt, so your wager is sound.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]

Its called aggravated assualt at a minimum. I hope both he and the Rangers are sued as well, as its this type of behavior that justifies an award of punitive damages. You can't act like an ass and threaten the well being of fans because somebody ran their mouth. MLB policy in each stadium premits the removal of unruly fans, and the reason is to prevent a player from taking things into his own hands. The Rangers handled this in a very unprofessional manner (and perhaps the A's and stadium security did as well) and all parties should have to deal with the consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you can sue a principal on a respondeat superior theory for the agent's intentional torts (Most intentional torts are considered outside the principal/agent relationship).

At best the Rangers can be included under a negligence theory, but that will be hard to prove, I assume.

The deep pocket will be the Stadium and security contractor. However, that will also be a negligence action.

Punative damages will only be recovered from Francisco.

Any thoughts on this? Why should the Rangers or anyone else besides Francisco be on the hook for punitive damages?

[J.R.]

Only francisco would be on the hook for punitive damages. Rangers negligence suit could be cast on something like negligent hiring, or more likely, negligent supervision, i.e. a failure to educate its players about the proper measures to respond to unruly fans and/or its history of throwing at batters which fostered an hostile/aggresisve environment or breach of some implied contract (stemming from the ticket purchase) that the teams/stadium would protect fans from enraged players (unlike foul balls). Maybe even a ratification argument, based on showalter's comments and or team effort to confront the fan (this is real iffy). But the point is the rangers will pay money if they are sued, and all the plaintiffs would have to do is come up with somethign to pass a motion to dismiss, which shouldn't be hard. Sports teams don't fight hugely public lawsuits filed by sympathetic fan plaintiffs (see the girl killed by the nhl puck, and that was inadvertant).

My point was Franciso's actions, his wanton disregard for the safety of others in hurling a metal chair in a large group of people is what punitive damages were meant for- to punish and discourage others from such foolish and ridiculous behavior (althoguh he won't get hammered because the woman is not seriously hurt). I did not mean to imply the rangers could face punitive damages (although failing to educate its players as to how to repsond to fans, espcially in light of the everett incident, could be corporate policy that theoretically, although not likely, could support punitive damages), and the aggravated assualt notion was the criminal charge francisco might/should/does? face.

The A's/stadium may be liable if there were complaints made and security was negligent in addressing those complaints, or a claim could be based on a design problem that allowed fans and the bullpen to be so close in proximity that the stadium configuration precipitated the event. I'd also bet alcohol sales might be something that is looked at, and if (I am sure this is a fact, not an if) one of the unruly patrons was drunk, perhaps a dram shop type of case could be brought agaisnt the As/stadium. Punis could potential come in for this alcohol probelm if there is a pattern of over-serving people, but I dont knoew much about the specifics of california law.

I don't really know too many facts, but these are a few ideas. I would imagine a plaintiff's lawyer just has to do is come up with a complaint that passes the smell test and they wil get paid, so it shouldn't be too hard.

[Oski]

I agree with you except on one point. The Rangers are not a "corporation" in a vacuum. This would be the type of fight that would be supported by all the other teams. In many cases, the teams do not own the stadium, nor are they responsible for hiring the security.

In recent years, there has been an increase in fan/player confrontations and the call for tighter security is a constant issue. MLB would like to see its players and teams protected, however, and once again, MLB usually does not have the final word.

The Rangers would fight this to put the spotlight on the real issue ... security and the stadium operators that are responsible for hiring security.

The negligence claim against the Rangers would be hard pressed to pass Demurrer. Fighting with 3rd parties is not part of being a major league baseball player ... fighting with other players is (or so it seems). Any such fighting is the act of the agent outside the scope of employment. As a base analogy, one would figure the St. Louis Rams could have been sued for Leonard Little's drunk-driving accident as the Rams and the NFL should have known many of its atheletes drink or take other substances to numb pain, relax, etc.

In other words, the action of throwing a chair into a crowd is too far removed from any conduct usually associated with that carried forth by a Major League Baseball team. Accordingly, as organizations are not burdened with teaching employees common sense, the Rangers would not be burdened with teaching its players not to fight with fans.

[J.R.]

I agree in general re: the Ranger potential liability, and I'm more just spouting from the hip and trying to think of any plausible basis upon which the rangers could be held liable. I don't know all of the facts/specifics of this case, but unlike the Little accident, which occured on his own time, this fight occurred while Francisco was "working". Is a duty of his job fan interaction?

Many MLB teams have contractual clausess that describe civic duties, such as charities, hospital visits, clinics, particiapation in media/fan events, etc. If so, do MLB teams have a duty to teach there players how to act, and to ensure that their employees do not endanger there fans (this is kinda out there too, I'm just thinking out loud).

I agree tossing a chain into the crowd is an intentional act outside of the scope of employemnt, but, arguably, part of a MLB player's duties include fan interactions. Autographs, public service, media interviews, etc. Unlike other sports, part of a ball players experience, whether tacit or something the team expressly wishes the player to engage in, is fan interaction. The dugouts and bullpens close promixity to fans, the rich history of autographs/memorablia in baseball, etc. Foreseeability is an isssue that might weigh against a baseball team who expects their players to interact with fans. There is also some notion that baseball fans are invitees (hence the need for legislation in each MLB state relating to injuries that arise from foul balls) and are owed a duty of care by the teams/MLB/stadium.

It could be argued (perhaps not very successfully) that MLB teams owe a duty to fans to ensure there players are minimally educated as to how to deal with fans, how to deal with unruly fans, and to not encourage players to confront fans. Showalter, as the manager, seemed to incite things/support the conforntation of the unruly fan/fans, although that's something that I am not all to sure on factually. For example, were it proven that Francisco didn't know the procedure for identifying security or didn't have an avenue to express his frustration with the unruly fan, one might saw MLB/rangers/whomever didn't have in place a procedure to minimize this foreseeable outocme.

The teams make money selling concessions, i.e. alcohol (maybe its technically not the "team" as a business entity but a separate entity), so do they have a duty to foresee what might arise form this. Are the home teams responsible for security? I dunno.

The Rangers would fight this to put the spotlight on the real issue ... security and the stadium operators that are responsible for hiring security.

I am pretty sure any plaintiffs lawyers would go after each party, and the rangers/mlb would settle out. Sure fingers will get pointed at security by MLB/ the rangers, but these fingers won't be pointed at co-defendants, as there is no way a sports team wants to go to court on this issue (assuming they could be successfully sued). IMO, if your player throws a chair at a fan, you pay and distance your self from the situation form a PR persepctive. But interesting thoughts, this is better than the stuff on my desk.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
They used to boo Mike Schmidt, so your wager is sound.

[/ QUOTE ]

Schmidt was a hack. All he did was hit 500+ HR's, play Gold Glove 3B, and bring a World Series title home to Philly. He deserved to be booed. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[andyfox]

Reading the story, I noted that "Last season, an Oakland fan was charged with assault after throwing a cell phone from the second deck that hit outfielder Carl Everett, then with the Rangers, in the back of the head."

Apparently no damage was done.