"hurting people for the sake of hurting people." (Kupelian,1997).
Whether it's a hockey player intentionally slashing an opponent across the face with a.
hockey stick or a boxer biting an opponent's ear, the newspaper headlines are dominated by.
stories of athletes and their violent actions. Of course, contact sports such as football, hockey, and.
especially boxing require the use of aggressive bodily force against opponents and are violent by.
their very natures, but where do we draw the line? Well, let's begin by attempting to define.
violence. Violence is a premeditated act of aggression against another person or thing with the.
intent to harm. To apply this to sports, we could amend this definition by stating that violence has.
occurred when one opponent has broken the rules of play with the intent to harm another.
opponent. This "intent to harm"is what separates violence from aggression.
In his book Fair Play, Robert Simon explains it another way. In what he calls the.
Vulnerability Principle, Simon says that for the use of force to be ethically defensible, the.
opposing player must be in a position and condition to respond to that force. My example of this.
principle would be a match between a high school football team and a NFL team. The high.
school team is definitely at a disadvantage, thus vulnerable, and likely to get hurt. Mr. Simon.
would label this as ethically indefensible. But, two professional teams would be more evenly.
matched and prepared for their opponents use of force. So, if use of force doesn't necessarily.
constitute violence, then let us examine another part of the definition. Namely, rules and.
regulations.
All sports have certain rules and regulations that carry specific penalties if broken. In the.
past, players have been hit with suspensions and fines for breaking the rules and committing acts.
that were not in the context of the sport. In December of 1997, the NBA's league commissioner, .
