By Ellen J. Staurowsky
One of the most enduring images of the college sport scene is the jubilant rushing of the field or court by fans in the aftermath of a big win. As a cultural phenomenon, sportswriters have long offered perspectives on the appropriateness of such fan outpouring. For some, storming the field is to be reserved for special occasions – the last second buzzer beater, the major upset, a win over a long time rival, or a championship win. For others, a license to unleash collective and partisan exuberance is potentially dangerous, unsporting, or just plain ill-advised (Pizza, 2008; Reilly, 2010; Schwartz, 2009).
As a practical matter, college sport venues draw millions of fans to games each year. During the 2009 fall season, NCAA college football teams across all divisions drew over 48.3 million spectators (Johnson, 2010). Notably, while attendance at Division I games declined slightly, attendance at Division II and III games increased by 55,053 and 32,737 respectively. While over 33 million attended NCAA men’s basketball games during the 2008-2009 academic year, NCAA women’s basketball drew over 11 million to their games (Staff, 2009a; Staff, 2009b).
It is this combination of tradition, fan avidity, large numbers or large numbers compared to capacity that creates potentially combustible situations that Michael Carroll and Kevin Byon, professors of sport management at the University of Southern Mississippi, suggest venue operators and managers may be unprepared to handle. In a presentation at the College Sport Research Institute Conference at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill last week, Carroll and Byon cited the position of the International Association of Assembly Managers (IAAM) which advocates for well thought out and implemented crowd management plans.
While field or court rushing is often showcased in the marketing of college sport as a symbol of celebration, numerous court cases have raised issues pertaining to institutional liability in the aftermath of students sustaining injuries when these celebrations happen. In Bourne v. Ball State (2005), a 21-year-old student was paralyzed after being struck in the back by goalposts as they were being pulled down. While the injured student chose to settle with Ball State, the issue of foreseeability of risk was a key determinant in establishing institutional liability. Investigators found that administrators discussed the possibility that the goalposts might be torn down prior to the game and that a Ball State employee who was operating the scoreboard had pre-programmed a message that read, “The goalposts look lonely” (LaVetter, 2009).
In 1993, following a football win at the University of Wisconsin, over 70 spectators were injured, including six with serious injuries, when a horde of students moving to rush the field were blocked by a locked gate placed there by stadium personnel. In 2008, East Carolina University revelers, attempted to celebrate a win over West Virginia, were allegedly subjected to excessive force by police officers hired to provide security for the game (Associated Press, 2008).
Despite these, and other well-publicized cases, school authorities have been slow to implement policies to ensure the safety of spectators and reduce institutional liability. As Carroll and Byon pointed out, “A school’s failure to do so could lead to potential legal liability stemming from landowner/premises liability.” In supporting this point, they cited rulings from two cases, Bearman v. University of Notre Dame (1983) and Hayden v. University of Notre Dame (1999) where liability attached due to foreseeable threats.
Responding to the necessity for guidance in developing plans to handle crowd management at college sport venues, some NCAA conferences now fine schools if their fans rush a court or field. In 2004, members of the Southeast Conference unanimously approved a policy banning fans from rushing onto the field or court and establishing a three tier fining apparatus for multiple violations, ranging from $5,000 for the first offense, $25,000 for the second, and $50,000 for the third. Equivocation on student celebrations, however, was evident in January of 2010 when South Carolina fans, overcome with excitement after beating the then number one team in the nation University of Kentucky men’s basketball team spilled onto the court. Encouraged to come onto the court by a South Carolina player, the prospect of a fine from the SEC did not seem to deter the South Carolina faithful in the moment. As athletics director Eric Hyman reported, fans were offering him money to help pay the fine (“South Carolina fined…”, 2010).
As college and university athletics administrators, risk managers, and legal counsels continue to ponder the position they will take on this issue, Carroll and Byon offered several recommendations to consider:
1. Develop a Crowd Management Plan (CMP) that outlines policies and procedures used to manage excessive crowds.
2. Ensure that an adequate number of security personnel are present relative to crowd size.
3. Be mindful of unpredictable events such as heated rivalry games or unexpected upset victories.
4. Establish a communication network between facility personnel and local emergency services and law enforcement.
5. Ensure that stadium and security personnel are appropriately trained in dealing with large crowds.
6. Have well-written policies for dealing with particularly unruly and/or disruptive spectators.
7. Have a written Fan Code of Conduct that spectators are required to abide by, and communicate it to spectators as they enter the facility
8. If alcohol is being served at within the venue or the consumption of alcohol is common prior to spectator entrance into the venue, have a policy for dealing with intoxicated fans.
9. Be sure to document any and all crowd issues, including any fan ejections.
References
Associated Press. (2008, September 10). Allegations of excessive force prompt changes at ECU. ESPN.com. Retrieved May 2, 2010 at http://www.espn.com.
Bearman v. Notre Dame, 453 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983)
Carroll, M., & Byon, K.K. (2010). Liability and risk associated with crowd management at collegiate arenas and stadiums. Poster presented at the College Sport Research Institute Conference, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
Hayden v. Notre Dame, 716 N.E. 2d 603 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
Johnson, G. (2010, February 22). NCAA football attendance plateaus after record run.
The NCAA News. Retrieved May 2, 2010 at http://www.ncaa.org
LaVetter, D. (2009, November). Split on the uprights. Athletic Management.
Retrieved May 1, 2010 at http://www.athleticmanagement.com/
LaVetter, D., & Choi, Y. S. (xxxx). Implications of toppling goal posts in college football: Managing institutional risk. Journal of Sport Administration & Supervision. Retrieved May 1, 2010 at http://www.jsasonline.org/home/v2n2/whitepapers/
Whitepapers/WP_LaVetter-Choi_2010.pdf
Pizza, T. (2008, November 25). Rushing the field went all wrong Saturday.
The Daily Utah Chronicle. Retrieved May 2, 2010 at
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com
Reilly, R. (2010, March 3). Storming the court. ESPN.com.
Retrieved May 2, 2010 at http://www.espn.com
Schwartz, E. (2009, July 26). Should you rush the field? Arizona Daily Wildcat. Retrieved May 2, 2010 at http://wildcat.arizona.edu
South Carolina fined $25,000 for fans storming court. (2010, January 27).
CBSSports.com. Retrieved May 2, 2010 at http://www.cbssports.com
Staff. (2009a). 2009 national college basketball attendance. Indianapolis, IN:
National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved May 2, 2010 at http://www.ncaa.org
Staff. (2009b). 2009 NCAA women’s basketball attendance. Indianapolis, IN:
National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved May 2, 2020 at
http://www.ncaa.org
Ellen J. Staurowsky is professor and graduate chair in the Department of Sport Management & Media at Ithaca College.
