Criminal Legal Assessment of Harm Caused during Sports Activities in Common Law Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of the study is foreign law enforcement practice on bringing athletes to criminal liability for causing harm during sports competitions. In order to determine the acceptable level of violence in sports games and the limits of an athlete’s consent to causing harm, the author examines the approaches of the courts of precedent law countries, namely the UK, Canada and the USA. The concepts of rules of the game and part of the game are analyzed, and their advantages and disadvantages are identified. The experience of foreign countries in holding athletes accountable in contact sports involving physical contact–hockey, football, basketball–is summarized. The problems of finding universal criteria for assessing a player’s actions are revealed, and Canadian judicial practice on this issue is examined in detail. The reasonably foreseeable hazards approach proposed by American legislators and courts is examined. The author comes to the conclusion about the non-systemic and selective nature of criminal prosecutions for sports violence and the dominance of the position of non-interference of criminal law in the field of sports, which corresponds to the principle of autonomous legal regulation of this sphere.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".