Incident stops Oyler-New Miami game

Very unfortunate incident that should never happen in high school athletics. Many lessons to learn for all involved. The visiting player deserves severe punishment for his poor choice after being fouled. In my opinion that punishment should be denial of participation not criminal charges.
New Miami's game management, bench and fans reaction was poor at best. With Covid rules you have a very limited number of fans in the gym. Anyone coming out of the crowd or leaving the bench area escalated the situation and also deserves denial of participation.
It also shouldn't be lost on anyone that southwest Ohio is among the most extreme area of our state in regard to our nation's political ideological divide. It isnt surprising the incident occurred where it did. Both communities and teams can learn valuable life lessons from competing against each other. Hopefully, administrators will provide the kids the proper perspective to turn this terrible incident into something positive.
 
coltfan76 said:
They would use the word rape. Just like they should have used the word assault or kick in this article.
They should call the rapist a rapist. Just like they should the Oyler player "the assailant" or "the criminal thug". Just like we call you "the apologist" or "the excuse maker."
Click to expand...

"we?" Just you old salt. There you go with the strawman again. Can't come up with a cogent arguement so you're going to change what others have said to something you can argue.

It's a news article not an opinion piece. Their wording stayed within what was given to them by the districts and the police. How is that not normal? Argue that pumpkin. If the police charge the kid with assault, guess what? They will use the word "assault." At the time of the article, all the kid had been charged with was a foul, by a ref. lol

You should start your own newspaper and write what you want. Or better, a school!!! Then you can tell everyone how to do things. But you have excuses. Poor baby.
 
Last edited:
theterribletowel said:
It isnt surprising the incident occurred where it did. Both communities and teams can learn valuable life lessons from competing against each other. Hopefully, administrators will provide the kids the proper perspective to turn this terrible incident into something positive.
Click to expand...

Something positive can be taken that they even scheduled the game. That's two communities getting together. If lunkheads stay out of it, they may actually be able to turn it to something more positive. But yes, consequences have to reflect what happened. It's fairly obvious (but not shown factual) there were opportunities for proactive prevention that weren't taken. It could very well be the kid just saw someone in a defenseless position and something very nasty kicked in. Only that kid and his family can deal with that. If something led up to it, there have to be procedures that give people leeway to just walk off the court. We're told to "suck it up." We try to teach kids to "suck it up," as a normal survival skill. But kids are not good at measuring the fine line between "suck it up," and "had enough." Craps gonna happen. They leaves only the obvious victim in our thoughts. Reasons for the kick do not heal that kid.
 
eastisbest said:
"we?" Just you old salt. There you go with the strawman again. Can't come up with a cogent arguement so you're going to change what others have said to something you can argue.

It's a news article not an opinion piece. Their wording stayed within what was given to them by the districts and the police. How is that not normal? Argue that pumpkin. If the police charge the kid with assault, guess what? They will use the word "assault." At the time of the article, all the kid had been charged with was a foul, by a ref. lol

You should start your own newspaper and write what you want. Or better, a school!!! Then you can tell everyone how to do things. But you have excuses. Poor baby.
Click to expand...

How can you imply that the kick to the head should not be mentioned in the news story? It is a basic fact, the main aspect of the story, and what caused the game to be shut down. To not include it is ridiculous.
 
theterribletowel said:
Very unfortunate incident that should never happen in high school athletics. Many lessons to learn for all involved. The visiting player deserves severe punishment
Click to expand...
theterribletowel said:
The visiting player deserves severe punishment for his poor choice after being fouled.
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken, the fouler and the kicker were the same player. This was not a retaliatory response from the person that was fouled. Kind of reminds me of everyone's favorite Duke player, Christian Laettner.
 
MooseJaw said:
How can you imply that the kick to the head should not be mentioned in the news story? It is a basic fact, the main aspect of the story, and what caused the game to be shut down. To not include it is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I didn't imply that. That reference would all be in your head. I didn't say it shouldn't be. Care to quote to prove your reading skills?

As for the issue of what should have been said AND HOW, you did notice this in the heading?

'unsportsmanlike'
Click to expand...

Why do you suppose they put unsportsmanlike in quotes in their title and again in the context? Hmmmmmm? Did you notice that the Journal-News article also didn't say an Oyler player kicked a New Miami player. (for coltfan whose reading skills suffer, it said he "appeared" to kick) Why do you suppose neither organization would just give the players name and say factually that he kicked another player in the head, that he "assaulted" him even though it appears exactly that in a public video? Think it through.

Or write that news organization and whine. Or either of the school districts as none of them said what you wish they'd said in the way you wish they'd say it. Report responses here, should be educational.

And like coltfan, I think you're free to start your own news organization and editorialize anyway you care to. But there is a difference between reporting and editorializing and those organizations that lose their way on that have earned our wrath, well except when we agree with it so it would seem.



As for whether or not the kick was the main aspect of the story, it wasn't. Not the story they were telling anyhow. From my reading of it, that particular article was focused on what unsportsmanlike action may or may not have preceeded the 'unsportsmanlike' action. There is nothing there for me to get upset about. The video is public.
 
Last edited:
MooseJaw said:
How can you imply that the kick to the head should not be mentioned in the news story? It is a basic fact, the main aspect of the story, and what caused the game to be shut down. To not include it is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
When MJ and I agree on something it has to be right. Lol
 
eastisbest said:
I didn't imply that. That reference would all be in your head. I didn't say it shouldn't be. Care to quote to prove your reading skills? You did notice this in the heading



Why do you suppose they put unsportsmanlike in quotes in their heading and again in the context? Hmmmmmm Did you notice that the Journal-News article also didn't say an Oyler player kicked a New Miami player. (for coltfan whose reading skills suffer, it said he "appeared" to kick) Why do you suppose neither organization would just give the players name and say factually that he kicked another player in the head? Think it through.

And like coltfan, I think you're free to start your own news organization and editorialize anyway you care to. But there is a difference between reporting and editorializing and those organizations that lose their way on that have earned our wrath, well except when we agree with it so it would seem.

Or write that news organization and whine. As for whether or not ithe kick was the main aspect of the story, it wasn't. Not the story they were telling anyhow. You're butthurt because their story was focused on something other than you wanted? I'm not following your gripe.
Click to expand...

Wow. So if someone disagrees with a news article your comeback is to "start your own news organization" How old are you? Grow up. I'm not saying that the news needed to give a name but I think it's its misleading reporting when the guts of their story is all about racial slurs and that hasn't even been proven. Especially when a black kid kicked another black kid in the head. How hard is it to mention that the melee started when a New Miami player was kicked in the head? Here is your quote:

"If New Miami didn't feel a need to mention sprecifics (hard foul vs. kick to the head), what's got you all twisted about the news organization following suit of those trying to de-escalate? The video is there, anyone can see it. If that reasoning is hard for you, pity you."

Sure seems that you agree. The Local12 article mentions NOTHING about a kick to the head - or any bad behavior by the Oyler kid. In my opinon that's just bad reporting - but hey, gotta sell racial divide, thats what gets people to click on the article! Thanks media! And for the record...I'm a little scared that I agree with Coltfan on something.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
eastisbest said:
"we?" Just you old salt. There you go with the strawman again. Can't come up with a cogent arguement so you're going to change what others have said to something you can argue.

It's a news article not an opinion piece. Their wording stayed within what was given to them by the districts and the police. How is that not normal? Argue that pumpkin. If the police charge the kid with assault, guess what? They will use the word "assault." At the time of the article, all the kid had been charged with was a foul, by a ref. lol

You should start your own newspaper and write what you want. Or better, a school!!! Then you can tell everyone how to do things. But you have excuses. Poor baby.
Click to expand...
The article I posted was not from a newspaper. Can you even read?
 
eastisbest said:
I didn't imply that. That reference would all be in your head. I didn't say it shouldn't be. Care to quote to prove your reading skills?

As for the issue of what should have been said AND HOW, you did notice this in the heading?



Why do you suppose they put unsportsmanlike in quotes in their title and again in the context? Hmmmmmm? Did you notice that the Journal-News article also didn't say an Oyler player kicked a New Miami player. (for coltfan whose reading skills suffer, it said he "appeared" to kick) Why do you suppose neither organization would just give the players name and say factually that he kicked another player in the head, that he "assaulted" him even though it appears exactly that in a public video? Think it through.

Or write that news organization and whine. Or either of the school districts as none of them said what you wish they'd said in the way you wish they'd say it. Report responses here, should be educational.

And like coltfan, I think you're free to start your own news organization and editorialize anyway you care to. But there is a difference between reporting and editorializing and those organizations that lose their way on that have earned our wrath, well except when we agree with it so it would seem.



As for whether or not the kick was the main aspect of the story, it wasn't. Not the story they were telling anyhow. From my reading of it, that particular article was focused on what unsportsmanlike action may or may not have preceeded the 'unsportsmanlike' action. There is nothing there for me to get upset about. The video is public.
Click to expand...
MJ and I were both referencing the article I posted. You probably need to have someone read it to you.
Unsportsmanlike was not in the header. The "article" was all about racial slurs that are just hearsay at this point.
 
Media with an agenda....

Here's some of the headlines....

"New Miami-Oyler basketball clash causes game to end early" A high school basketball game ended early after school officials say a hard foul led to more conflict on the court -- WLWT

"Oyler-New Miami basketball game called early; Oyler players say racist taunts, slurs used" -- WKRC ("unsportsmanlike act" is finally mentioned 6 paragraphs into the article)

"Oyler versus New Miami boys basketball game ends after 'unsportsmanlike' incident" -- An Oyler player appeared to have kicked a New Miami player after fouling him with 2:28 remaining in the third quarter WCPO (appeared???)

"This time the parents got involved.' Racial slurs, hard foul end New Miami v. Oyler basketball game" -- Cincinnati.com (um, the game didn't end because of a "hard foul", the game ended because of one player assaulting another player and the chaos that ensued following said assault)

I could go on....
 
AllSports12 said:
Media with an agenda....
Click to expand...
Agreed. I've read hundreds of articles the last couple of years that always included "without evidence" or "alleges". This story seems to be one that has one undeniable fact, a player was kicked. That should consistently be in every story written about the event. Covering the allegations and attempting to verify them are fair game. If they were unable to verify that any racial slurs were used, they should have clarified that it was only an allegation. Teammates and coaches of the person who assaulted the player on the floor should not be sufficient to verify the allegations. Officials, security, and scorekeepers would be good sources to verify.
 
coltfan76 said:
The article I posted was not from a newspaper. Can you even read?
Click to expand...

I can read that that makes THREE articles that did not say an Oyler player kicked another in the head. Can you count? Do you think there might be a reason that THREE diverse reportings at the time did not say an Oyler player kicked another in the head, let alone the ONE you and this MJ are whining about?
 
Yappi said:
Agreed. I've read hundreds of articles the last couple of years that always included "without evidence" or "alleges". This story seems to be one that has one undeniable fact, a player was kicked. That should consistently be in every story written about the event. Covering the allegations and attempting to verify them are fair game. If they were unable to verify that any racial slurs were used, they should have clarified that it was only an allegation. Teammates and coaches of the person who assaulted the player on the floor should not be sufficient to verify the allegations. Officials, security, and scorekeepers would be good sources to verify.
Click to expand...

You're speaking in hindsight of arguments given but fine. All reporting entities are tied to the same rules editorial rules and this is exactly the same situation as those others to which you refer? Like the others whining, if you've this major complaint about THREE different articles from THREE (edit, our Mod gave us yet a forth) different news organizations, call these news organizations and find out. The reasons do not seem that difficult to suss out without needing that contact so it's no bother to me but I think all here can at least admit, their responses would be educational and some people here might be able to rest easier knowing that American is safe from Oyler and New Miami B-Ball players, lol.

This little cadre has no problems sniffing out agendas and biases on the part of these news organizations, it really wouldn't be hard to do the same to you. Now would that be right, fair or have ANY basis in fact? Of course not. So again, it might be educational for you all to just call one of these organizations and ask them why they are reporting the incident as they are, as opposed to how you think they should.
 
Last edited:
Channel 9 showing some testicles and reporting both sides of the story. Does this offend you Eastisbest?

519972AA-55C6-48BA-A39F-AC3B726980D4.jpeg
 
MooseJaw said:
Channel 9 showing some testicles and reporting both sides of the story. Does this offend you Eastisbest?
Click to expand...
Does it offend you that this WCPO waited several days (the 18th) until they could GET another side to the story before just making it up? Does it offend you that WCPO felt the need to indicate the victim was African -American? Does it offend you that I never defended any action on the court? Does it offend you that I used the word "victim" and "kick" from the get go and never defended anyone for their violence.

Aren't you all sounding just a bit like the freaks in the stands spewing wet at refs because they're not calling em as you see em?

You all got butt-hurt because professional news organizations didn't use the words you wanted, when you wanted. Only you in your head can possibly know why that was important to you. I'll avoid making presumptions. I'm hoping as adults, you'll come to realize what you were demanding, what you thought was integrity but which simply would not have been.

Argue the facts established. I believe this was simple: Minors were involved. No charges had been filed, which makes language tricky. No matter how it looked, they needed something from a witness or the victim that had indicated that the kid was kicked. Again, he's a minor. Medical reports would not have been available. Not sure they are in any cases. They had only the reports and responses from the schools and districts which used none of the words you begged to hear. There was no immediate public emergency here, no reason to take any risks. They had the video for anyone to see that wanted to fill in the details that editorial policy (and lawyers no doubt) might not allow.

It's one thing to come on a message board and interpret that video. It's another to expect professionals to lower themselve to OUR level of guestimation, implication and assumption. You all getting butt-hurt because some news station didn't report something as you wanted, when you wanted is well, stupid. They have a responsibility. Let them do their jobs.

Since I never indicated I was ever offended you again are using Strawmen. So let me: I'm imagining you're showing this to all your little pointy hooded kids telling them what a hard guy you are. Hey kids? He's kind of stupid. Yeah, there's reasons thinking people avoid Strawmen. They are a false and harmfully wielded representaton. Can't come up with cogent arguments, which in this case is pudding, so you made up the position of the person whose arguments you didn't like. Couldn't see the obvious facts from the position of those who have responsibilites when reporting stories. And wouldn't simply ask them why they reported as they did.

Childish, I hope you're not involved in education.
 
Last edited:
eastisbest said:
Does it offend you that this WCPO waited several days (the 18th) until they could GET another side to the story before just making it up? Does it offend you that WCPO felt the need to indicate the victim was African -American? Does it offend you that I never defended any action on the court? Does it offend you that I used the word "victim" and "kick" from the get go and never defended anyone for their violence.

Aren't you all sounding just a bit like the freaks in the stands spewing wet at refs because they're not calling em as you see em?

You all got butt-hurt because professional news organizations didn't use the words you wanted, when you wanted. Only you in your head can possibly know why that was important to you. I'll avoid making presumptions. I'm hoping as adults, you'll come to realize what you were demanding, what you thought was integrity but which simply would not have been.

Argue the facts established. I believe this was simple: Minors were involved. No charges had been filed, which makes language tricky. No matter how it looked, they needed something from a witness or the victim that had indicated that the kid was kicked. Again, he's a minor. Medical reports would not have been available. Not sure they are in any cases. They had only the reports and responses from the schools and districts which used none of the words you begged to hear. There was no immediate public emergency here, no reason to take any risks. They had the video for anyone to see that wanted to fill in the details that editorial policy (and lawyers no doubt) might not allow.

It's one thing to come on a message board and interpret that video. It's another to expect professionals to lower themselve to OUR level of guestimation, implication and assumption. You all getting butt-hurt because some news station didn't report something as you wanted, when you wanted is well, stupid. They have a responsibility. Let them do their jobs.

Since I never indicated I was ever offended you again are using Strawmen. So let me: I'm imagining you're showing this to all your little pointy hooded kids telling them what a hard guy you are. Hey kids? He's kind of stupid. Yeah, there's reasons thinking people avoid Strawmen. They are a false and harmfully wielded representaton. Can't come up with cogent arguments, which in this case is pudding, so you made up the position of the person whose arguments you didn't like. Couldn't see the obvious facts from the position of those who have responsibilites when reporting stories. And wouldn't simply ask them why they reported as they did.

Childish, I hope you're not involved in education.
Click to expand...
Kicked in the head should have been included from the beginning, as well the fouling player did the kicking. There was video evidence. The rest of the story could have waited.
 
In fairness I would also add, I think the other organizations were early in reporting the "racial" comments but I did alude to this in my first post.
 
Talk some sense said:
Kicked in the head should have been included from the beginning, as well the fouling player did the kicking. There was video evidence. The rest of the story could have waited.
Click to expand...

I referred to this earlier. One of the organizations was careful to say it "appeared" as if he kicked in the head. News organizations are not charged with litigating, making decisions based on any type of evidence. In most cases, the public would accuse them of using their news articles to editorialize, something they are not supposed to do.

There's a huge difference between us saying it here based upon looking at a video and a news organization stating it factually. They can quote others. If it's personal witness by a reporter maybe then but even in that case, I doubt it. I think they stick with "appeared." These are minors making it even more of an issue I would suppose.

I'm not sure how that is difficult for the scooby gang here to understand? There was no emergency. They weren't warning the public of an immediate threat. They have time to get it right. This doesn't mean the organizations have an "agenda." Fact it, the scoobies weren't worried about what happened to the victim and that it got accurately reported. They were worried about "lefties." If they NEVER include it, getting so upset or presuming some agenda as was being done by the scoobies strikes me as silly, particularly since the video was public. But that's personal opinion, I realize that. Most articles on out in the real events do not seem to me to give lots of details. They say the person was "charged." In this case, no one has been charged. I suspect the concern is interfering with court cases.

But again, if it has you upset, why are you not asking those news organizations and school districts their reasons? I suspect they'll say the same things I've said here post one. ?
 
Last edited:
AllSports12 said:
The news organizations used alleged racial slurs in their headlines and the bodies of their stories.
They (save for one or two) did not mention that violent assault that was clearly caught on video, in their headlines or stories....

Lead with rumors, ignore the facts.....

Failed Journalism .......
Click to expand...

I didn't see any of the articles mention a "violent assault." Care to be kind and point that article out? You even point out they use the word "alleged." That was fair journalism. The only fail I would claim is that they rushed that story, which is incendiary IMO when they could have just reported what was provided by the districts until they had given proper time to others to counter those alleged comments. But I'm not claiming any conspiracy as the scoobies are. That's what most of this exchange has been about.
 
Last edited:
eastisbest said:
I didn't see any of the articles mention a "violent assault." Care to be kind and point that article out? You even point out they use the word "alleged." That was fair journalism. The only fail I would claim is that they rushed that story, which is incendiary IMO when they could have just reported what was provided by the districts until they had given proper time to others to counter those alleged comments. But I'm not claiming any conspiracy as the scoobies are. That's what most of this exchange has been about.
Click to expand...

Headline a story with alleged racial slurs (that came from someone not there) and ignore a kick in the head.... (and yes, that's a violent assault when someone is lying on the ground motionless and you kick them in the head).

Headline an alleged act
Ignore a factual event (and the real reason why the game was stopped) on video for everyone to see

You and I have different views of proper journalism.
 
Last edited:
Just curious, did anyone reach out to the original reporter? It would be interesting if there was some feedback that convinced WCPO to release more details than the original slanted story.
 
eastisbest said:
I referred to this earlier. One of the organizations was careful to say it "appeared" as if he kicked in the head. News organizations are not charged with litigating, making decisions based on any type of evidence. In most cases, the public would accuse them of using their news articles to editorialize, something they are not supposed to do.

There's a huge difference between us saying it here based upon looking at a video and a news organization stating it factually. They can quote others. If it's personal witness by a reporter maybe then but even in that case, I doubt it. I think they stick with "appeared." These are minors making it even more of an issue I would suppose.

I'm not sure how that is difficult for the scooby gang here to understand? There was no emergency. They weren't warning the public of an immediate threat. They have time to get it right. This doesn't mean the organizations have an "agenda." Fact it, the scoobies weren't worried about what happened to the victim and that it got accurately reported. They were worried about "lefties." If they NEVER include it, getting so upset or presuming some agenda as was being done by the scoobies strikes me as silly, particularly since the video was public. But that's personal opinion, I realize that. Most articles on out in the real events do not seem to me to give lots of details. They say the person was "charged." In this case, no one has been charged. I suspect the concern is interfering with court cases.

But again, if it has you upset, why are you not asking those news organizations and school districts their reasons? I suspect they'll say the same things I've said here post one. ?
Click to expand...
I'm not even remotely upset, just calling BS if you think there is any doubt that the kid kicked an unprotected player in the head. Whatever his "motivation" kicking a defenseless player in the head is BS. Not talking about a right or anything like that for the love of god the one kid kicked the other in the head when he was on the ground. Defend that or the coverage of it (based on some weird accepting the press being weak) but he did kick the other kid based on really suspect reasons which I don't know about about. But might include a kid being pissed off for a variety of reasons including his team being beat by a lot.
 
The mother of the player assaulted has taken one of the TV stations to task for the irresponsible reporting. She's posted the back and forth with the news director of the station on a social media platform.
 
Who here is tired of seeing the phrase “butt hurt” and “living rent free in your head”? I say it’s 2021 and let these sayings stay in 2020 ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top