Poll: Should this football player be held to account for breaking the cameraman's nose? *video*

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BD231

Lifer
Feb 26, 2001
10,568
138
106
LOL! Great clip, I'm sure the push off was out of habbit but he's still at fault.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
what an assh0le. I shoot professionally, often at college and pro level and would be absolutely livid if I saw that. Sure, there's a risk to being on the field but that was just malicious!
 

merlocka

Platinum Member
Nov 24, 1999
2,832
0
0
Awwww. Poor little camera guy got pushed by football player who was just sprinting for 30 yards and didn't slow down enough.

If you notice, the receiver that he was covering (and only a step behind) carried hard into the wall. Had the camera man been 6 feet to the left he'd probably be all jacked up by now.




 

ziptie

Banned
Sep 27, 2003
65
0
0
no, i dont think he properly had the time to stop. as merlocka said the receiver continued even farther. even so, the camera man is watching the game...would you stand in front of two big football players sprinting towards you?
 

PoPPeR

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2002
6,993
0
0
Originally posted by: ziptie
no, i dont think he properly had the time to stop. as merlocka said the receiver continued even farther. even so, the camera man is watching the game...would you stand in front of two big football players sprinting towards you?
if u want the big bucks, u gotta get the great shots :)

 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Originally posted by: ziptie
no, i dont think he properly had the time to stop. as merlocka said the receiver continued even farther. even so, the camera man is watching the game...would you stand in front of two big football players sprinting towards you?

not as easy as you think. end zones are crowded. did you see the cameraman on the left try and get out of the way, only to trip and fall over the still photographer who was holding a 600 f/4 telephoto lens? besides he did move out of the way, a good 5-6 feet. the blocker ran towards him and gave a definite shove. the intended reciever's hit into the wall was clearly exagerated.
 

PeeluckyDuckee

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2001
4,464
0
0
From the video it looks like he did shove the camera man. What an a$$. The rest of the camera men should whack him in the head and balls with their cameras.
 

habib89

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2001
3,599
0
0
was the player at fault? yes

should the cameraman be able to sue over it? probably

will the cameraman be able to sue over it? probably not.. i'm sure there's like a waiver or something that they have to sign to be down there
 

Ladies Man

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,775
0
76
i'm going with he wasn't gunning for the guy...

He was running as hard as he could, saw the camera man but didn't really... if you're about to run into something you put your hands up... as he hit the camera man at speed with your hands up they will go out with the object as his did when he hit off him.. not a shove...

no one is at fault.. it happens... he was just unlucky that he got hurt

 

EvilYoda

Lifer
Apr 1, 2001
21,198
9
81
Originally posted by: rival
shouldnt be standin down there if you cant protect yourself

I agree, all cameramen should be packing on the field, incase a runaway player comes his way.
 

LethalWolfe

Diamond Member
Apr 14, 2001
3,679
0
0
Originally posted by: merlocka
Awwww. Poor little camera guy got pushed by football player who was just sprinting for 30 yards and didn't slow down enough.

If you notice, the receiver that he was covering (and only a step behind) carried hard into the wall. Had the camera man been 6 feet to the left he'd probably be all jacked up by now.

Hard into the wall? Um, yeah. A lazey leap into the padding is what it was. I've seen the Lambou leap performed w/more force than that wide out hit the wall with. Had the camera been 6ft to the left he probably would be okay 'cause the wide out wasn't an d(ck like the DB he just burned was. The WR made a move to help avoid the cameraman that was to his left. The DB looks right at the camera guy and pushes him over. Maybe he was jealous 'cause the camera was on the wide out and not him?


Lethal
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,949
575
126
The collision was clearly made more forceful than it had to be due to the safety's disregard for the cameraman. Players do have a shared responsibility to avoid collisions that far out of the field of play to the extent they are reasonably able. The cameraman was stepping backwards and to the opposing side. The player made zero effort at all to avoid the cameraman.

I don't think it was a malicious push, but it was at least careless and that's enough to incur blame, not for the collision itself, but for that extent of the collision which was unnecessarily severe or forceful resulting in injury.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Yes, due deligence was not taken too avoid hurting this man. It would be like you are sitting at a red light, it turns green and you accelerate into an intersection into the cars still making the belated left turns. You would be charged even with the green since you saw them and the accident was avoidable.

But then I think all pro athletes who fight or otherwise assault one another in a game should be arrested on the spot and charged with assualt and battery. Double standards need to go.
 

DurocShark

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
15,708
5
56
Doesn't matter if it was a shove, or if the player pulled a friggin baseball bat outta his butt and slammed the photog with it...

At sporting events, it's the photographers responsibility to stay well out of the players way. The photog should have moved quicker.

Look, I'm not saying this to be a sh!t... It's part of the press package. You cover a sporting event, you take the risk you're going to get hurt, intentionally or not.

Now if the player was walking out of the locker room and shoved the photog, that would be different.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Originally posted by: broon
Nope. Although it looks like the player could have avoided it, the camera man is aware that things like this can happen. Plus the stadium should have some insurance for these kinds of things. The cameraman should definately not be able to sue over it.

its looks to me like the player was pissed that he got owned on the touchdown and took it out on the cameraman. He definetly veered towards the cameraman that was filming the opposing player.

I would be curious to know if the cameramen have to sign some sort of waiver to be allowed on the field.