nhl risks and liabilities
i don't think some people really get what i am going to school to do. so i was thinking over the next couple of days i'd post some papers i've had to write. i don't expect you to read all of them, because well they are school papers; but skim through and get an overall idea of my future life in this industry. : )
the paper below was for my risks and liabilities management course (from the venue manager's perspective, so couldn't write about players getting injured, etc). iiiiii wrote it very last minute (wrote it by pulling an all nighter).
National Hockey League Facilities: Four Major Risks and Liabilities
SPTE 746
20 October 2009
Kathryn Carlson
University of South Carolina
Introduction
Four major tenants of the National Hockey League’s facility related risks concern the duty to provide a reasonably safe environment. Flying pucks are a natural hazard of ice hockey but facilities are granted immunity against liable charges because of the limited duty rule. A less commonly discussed danger is that of poor indoor air quality which is capable of causing health complications such as asthma and heart disease. Since 2001, the concern from facility operators and patrons alike has been a terrorist attack especially due to a high potential casualty rate and media coverage at large spectator events. Finally, the risk of fan misconduct during a professional hockey game resulting in unruly or even illegal behavior can pose a threat to other patrons to whom a facility and the league have a duty to protect.
Flying Pucks
Limited duty has been referred to as the ‘baseball rule’ but has been applied regularly to ice hockey. Limited duty arises out of the assumption of risk theory that getting hit by a puck is such an open and obvious danger, the patron should be aware of and assume the risk of sitting in an unprotected area. However, while limited duty requires no duty to warn, it does warrant facility operators a two prong duty of care to provide a reasonably safe environment: to provide as many screened seats as may be reasonably expected for those spectators who want them on an ordinary occasion (Quinn v. Recreation Park Association, 1935) and to provide spectators protection in the most dangerous portion of the stands (Schneider v. American Hockey & Ice Skating Center, Inc., 2001). In 2000, the Canada Safety Council were concerned hockey pucks “caused serious injuries” (“Protecting Hockey Spectators”) and stated spectator injury from pucks was “a longstanding concern” in April 2003 (“Spectator Safety for Indoor Arenas”).
Throughout ninety decades of professional ice hockey, there have been many incidents of patrons being injured, sometimes seriously, by pucks leaving the ice and entering the stands. A study in 2000 by Milzman found that during 127 hockey games, “there were 122 people injured by pucks, 90 of which required stitches. Of the total injured 45% required transport to a hospital emergency room.” The study also found that “females and children were injured 2.6 times more frequently than adult males. As with baseball, most reported injuries involve the head and face” (Milzman, 2000).
Nevertheless, it was not until a 13 year old girl named Brittanie Cecil was killed by a puck in Columbus, Ohio, in 2002, that professional ice hockey leagues took increased preventative measures to protect invitees. A Sports Illustrated article notes, “Brittanie was the first fan in league history to be killed by a puck” (Wertheim, L.J., 2002). Immediately after the incident, the NHL and minor league professional teams mandated the use of netting above the glass in the corners and end zones as soon as possible for the 2002-2003 Season.
In the 2009-2010 NHL Official Rules, section 1.3 Boards and Glass specifically states: “Affixed to the boards and extending vertically shall be approved safety glass extending eight feet (8’) above the boards at each end of the rink and not less than five feet (5’) along both sides of the rink.” However, Section 1.4 Spectator Netting is more vague: “Spectator netting shall be hung in the ends of the arena, of a height, type, and in a manner approved by the League.” Usually the netting stretches to the ceiling or protects the seating in the lower bowl.
Legally, under limited duty, the Columbus Blue Jackets would not have to compensate the family or make league-wide safety changes. Yet, as a result of Cecil’s young age and heightened community and national attention, the league’s changing of the glass and netting standards was a socially responsible thing to do; it was good public relations with the media; and it would help reduce future league and facility liability.
For the NHL, I concur that limited duty should be applied because the risks are open and obvious and logically assumable. Now that the netting stretches to protect patrons in the lower bowl at the corners and end zone, the NHL helps protect fans from an inherent risk of the game without changing the nature of the game. Warnings are made on the public address system at the beginning of the match and on the center or end video boards before each period. Spectators are often held in vomitoria while the puck is in play and allowed to return to their seats when the puck has stopped (Nemarik v. The Los Angeles Kings Hockey Club, L.P., 2002). Assumption of risk disclaimers are printed on the backs of tickets. The glass on the ends and corners are higher than in the center and have a film on both sides of the glass so shards do not go everywhere if the glass is broken. Also of significance is that NHL events have limited distractions inside the bowl area while the puck is in play; the t-shirt cannon, crowd participation, and entertainment use of video boards or non-game use takes place during time outs or in between periods.
“[O]wners and operators of hockey and baseball facilities have a duty to provide additional protection to fans in those seats where the danger of pucks or balls going into the stands is greatest” (Wolohan, 2009). For all of the previously reasons, I believe the league satisfies this duty and has effective strategies to provide a reasonably safe seating environment.
Air Quality
The concept that premise operators are in the best position to discover unknown hazards is the foundation of the legal duty to inspect. Once a hazard is discovered, a reasonable and prudent facility operator should then “take reasonable steps to remedy the problem or to warn participants” (Yasser, 1985, p. 38). Ice hockey rinks face a unique issue of poor indoor air quality, but currently only three states require the monitoring of air quality in arenas.
Combustion pollutants, while less obvious than most hazards, can pose severe health risks for some spectators, players, and workers inside closed venues. Contaminants are emitted “from the exhaust of fuel-fired ice resurfacers. Combustion pollutants are produced whenever any fuel such as gasoline, propane, or diesel is burned.” (U.S. EPA, 2009). The engines can also emit high levels of carbon monoxide (CO) and toxic compounds such as benzene, which is especially problematic for engines operating in areas with limited access to fresh air (U.S. EPA, 2002). High temperatures, high humidity and poor ventilation can also cause increased concentrations of the pollutants.
An investigative video report produced in April 2009 by ESPN E:60 entitled Danger in the Air, stated that in the previous three months, 200 people were sick due to ice resurfacing machine emissions. Improper maintenance of machinery can lead to the release of dangerous levels of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ultra fine particulate matter (PM). These dangers can increase the proclivity for asthma and lung disease. The E:60 feature reporter tested the air quality in 34 rinks in 14 states. Of the rinks that used natural gas or propane ice resurfacers, “one-third had dangerous levels of carbon monoxide, nitrous dioxide, or ultra fine particles” (ESPN, 2009).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed regulations on large industrial spark ignition (Large SI) engines over the last five years in response to awareness of the adverse health risks posed by their emissions. Unfortunately, as the investigative video proved, the EPAs guidelines for reduced emissions and proper maintenance are not being adhered to closely - or at all. Of premise operators’ options to discontinue the activity, modify it, or warn the patron of the danger, the NHL has chosen to modify the situation so their arenas have less pollution. “Continued monitoring of local air quality and attention to ventilation will always be an important responsibility of operators and owners” (U.S. EPA, 2002).
Air pollution is not an open and obvious risk to most NHL patrons. While it is not one-hundred percent avoidable, air pollution is not an inherent hazard of indoor hockey because enough preventative measures can be taken to reduce emissions and exposure. First, air pollution is not a primary concern in NHL facilities primarily because of the size of their heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems which are capable of redistributing air within the facility and reduces heat and humidity in the building; both outcomes serve to decrease combustion pollutant concentration levels. Second, a facility large enough to host an NHL game has an exhaust system - both manual and automatic - which can effectively remove air to the outside. This ventilation system can also be used for concert smoke from pyrotechnics or odors from bull riding and the rodeo. Third, NHL facilities are purchasing machines with Large SI engines that were manufactured under the EPA’s reduced emissions guidelines or electric ice resurfacers. The electric machinery uses no gas or propane, emits no CO or NO2, and releases minimal PM.
The only additional control strategy to ensure air quality in all facilities would be a mandate by the NHL for operators to monitor the air on a routine basis, to educate employees and facility managers on proper ventilation after machine usage, and to regularly test the ventilation systems in place to ensure their effective operation. Regulated indoor ice hockey facilities had ten times lower combustion pollutants than hockey facilities that were not (ESPN, 2009).
Terrorism
Terrorism is a risk that NHL teams and facility managers as well as fans and spectators are thinking about and becoming prepared for. The applicable rule for liability is found in the Restatement of Torts (Second) § 344 (1965):
“A possessor of land … is subject to liability to members of the public … for physical harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons, and by the failure of the possessor to exercise reasonable care to (a) discover that such acts are being done or are likely to be done, or (b) give a warning adequate to enable the visitors to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect them against it.”
While an act of terrorism is by nature unpredictable, this does not preclude broad foreseeability. “Sport venue managers and spectators perceive terrorism as a foreseeable threat to U.S. sport facilities and believe it is only a matter of time before they are attacked” (Baker et al., 2007). Foreseeability therefore means there are various preventative measures facilities can take to reduce the severity and magnitude of the attack.
National Hockey League arenas are classified in the Commercial Facilities Section, and their lead agency is the U.S. Department of Homeland Security according to the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. Given the common practices set forth by Homeland Security in the “Protective Measures Guide for U.S. Sports Leagues” and the “Mass Evacuation Planning Guide,” buildings have some constructive notice of risk. The Department of Homeland Security recognizes each sporting facility and event has different characteristics and elements, but has still set in place guidelines for action plans and securing facilities.
A highly publicized rivalry or NHL event-such as the Stanley Cup Final or the Winter Classic, where the potential amount of loss could be high and media coverage is always maximized-would be a more susceptible and attractive target for a terrorist attack. The higher profile the event, the more steps, security efforts, and personnel are increased. The level of security provided depends on the foreseeability of harm (Napper v. Kenwood Drive In Theatre Co., 1958).
For example, since a more common problem is the bomb threat, many tactics and safeguards already exist. Constructive notice becomes actual notice if a warning is called in. Bomb threat sheets can be kept located adjacent to every administrative phone. The probability of a bomb is likely and should be taken seriously until no proof of the bomb is found. A police canine that can detect explosive materials should be used to sweep the facility before every NHL event and kept on site until the event is over. If a bomb is found, proper training of all event staff on how far a radius to clear patrons, whether or not radios can be used, and how to evacuate the building would come in to play. The severity and magnitude of a bomb would depend on size, location, and type.
While this preparedness is adequate, to be more effective, I would propose that emergency plans for NHL arenas and events should include comprehensive staff training for a myriad of terrorist threats and attacks, not just the most common, such as bombs. This may include running active shooter, mass evacuation, and other emergency drills. I think an exceptionally weak area for facilities are bag checks. While every NHL venue now has them, few seem to have staff that conduct them thoroughly enough to detect any device of significant size - such as a gun, an explosive device, or a detonator.
The National Hockey League conducts monthly security audits (Iwata, 2002), but I think that more can be done in the area of NHL venue safety and security. In accordance, “Researchers have reported that there is a lack of security personnel training at sport stadiums relative to guarding against terrorism” (Baker et. al, 2007). Each facility should have a risk assessment method that takes into account the consequence, vulnerability, and threat for every defined risk scenario. It should “identify the target, source of harm, and the conditions that are relevant” so that a deterrence system or measure can be put into place (DHS, 2006). Homeland Security can conduct site visits, train security staff on surveillance detection, and give facilities a Vulnerability Identification Self-Assessment Tool (ViSAT).
Fan (Mis)Behavior
As noted previously in the discussion of terrorism, a premise operator owes its business invitees a duty to protect against the “the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons” (Restatement of Torts, 1965). When a fan becomes unruly, it is the facility manager’s duty, as a servant of the league, to safeguard other clientele from being harmed by the disruptive patron.
Fans accept a culture of violence in ice hockey. Hockey is a sport that unofficially condones fighting between players during the game. Fans recognize particular players as “enforcers;” this type of designated fighter creates no major loss of skill to the team when he is sent to the penalty box. The sport is high paced for the duration of the periods, which excites the crowd to a high energy level. The fans’ culture can in turn imitate the dominating actions, physical altercations, or violent tendencies that often arise in a game. This can especially be piqued when favorite players have had exchanges on the ice or during charged rivalry games when a collective effervescence permeates the arena’s atmosphere. Another underlying factor that is ubiquitous to the big four sporting leagues is alcohol consumption. Even imbibing slightly can cause some zealous fans to cross the line from rowdy to obscene or violent.
Many arenas and stadiums work with the Techniques for Effective Alcohol Management (TEAM) coalition to develop alcohol management systems. Undercover officers are also brought in to audit beer vendors. Two steps all facilities take are bag checks and prohibiting weapons inside - which could increase the severity and magnitude of altercations if permitted. Unlike the National Basketball Association (NBA), National Football League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB), and Major League Soccer (MLS), the NHL does not have a fan code of conduct. Even the PGA Tour - a low energy, non-violent sport - has golf “etiquette” publicized and for which violation results in immediate removal from the event. There are individual arenas with rules for fan behavior and hotlines patrons can call or text to report obscene or disruptive behavior. Sometimes a specific NHL event has a code of conduct, such as the Winter Classic in New York.
A little over a year and a half ago, in addition to policies and procedures, a Fan Code of Conduct was put into place for the first annual Winter Classic. The Winter Classic occurs on New Year’s Day and is a regular season game played outside. This is one of the newest, largest hockey events of the year - held in outdoor stadiums such as Ralph Wilson Stadium, Fenway Park, and Wrigley Field. At Wrigley Field on January 1, 2009, the rules for fan behavior included no tailgating in Cubs parking lots, no smoking, and a request to “respect other guests’ ability to enjoy the game.” The rules stated: “Loud or obnoxious fans could be asked to leave the ballpark if their behavior is deemed to be offensive to guests around them” (Bridgestone FAQ, 2008).
I think the area of fan behavior is potential risk that is not being handled as proactively as it could. Implementing a league-wide code of conduct for fans would send a message of concern and forethought and would allow the patron to alter their intended behavior. Once a code was in place, it should be well publicized. For example, the NFL’s new behavior policy is posted in all 32 clubs’ stadiums; it is also posted online, stated on video boards before and during games, sent out with ticket mailings (such as to season ticket holders), and sometimes handed out on small, printed cards with other promotional giveaways.
The text alerts are also good ways for security to monitor crowd behavior during NHL events when crowd energy is elevated. I think this should be a required feature at all arenas within the next two years. If there were a fan code of conduct, then patrons would know exactly which type of behaviors to report. Staff, such as ushers and security, could have training for the new code of conduct so they can first warn patrons who are becoming disorderly that they could be ejected, lose their tickets for the season, or even be arrested. The code of conduct gives the staff leverage; the patron has something to lose, so the staff has something to use. Security and police officers must then be given the authority to follow through and to escort people from the building. While there is some concern over law verses policy for spectators, a ticket is ultimately a limited license and revocable at the facility or league’s discretion (Fitzgerald, 2008).
Conclusion
The National Hockey League works closely with facility managers to ensure a reasonably safe environment for its fans and other invitees. Whether the duty is to inspect, maintain equipment, protect from the intentional or unintentional acts of third persons or to provide adequate number of screened seating areas, the NHL has at least some measures in place to fulfill these obligations. Overall, the National Hockey League provides a safe and enjoyable event for patrons, but some steps to reduce air pollution, minimize terrorist threats, and enforce a fan code of conduct could ultimately enhance and benefit the experience.
the paper below was for my risks and liabilities management course (from the venue manager's perspective, so couldn't write about players getting injured, etc). iiiiii wrote it very last minute (wrote it by pulling an all nighter).
National Hockey League Facilities: Four Major Risks and Liabilities
SPTE 746
20 October 2009
Kathryn Carlson
University of South Carolina
Introduction
Four major tenants of the National Hockey League’s facility related risks concern the duty to provide a reasonably safe environment. Flying pucks are a natural hazard of ice hockey but facilities are granted immunity against liable charges because of the limited duty rule. A less commonly discussed danger is that of poor indoor air quality which is capable of causing health complications such as asthma and heart disease. Since 2001, the concern from facility operators and patrons alike has been a terrorist attack especially due to a high potential casualty rate and media coverage at large spectator events. Finally, the risk of fan misconduct during a professional hockey game resulting in unruly or even illegal behavior can pose a threat to other patrons to whom a facility and the league have a duty to protect.
Flying Pucks
Limited duty has been referred to as the ‘baseball rule’ but has been applied regularly to ice hockey. Limited duty arises out of the assumption of risk theory that getting hit by a puck is such an open and obvious danger, the patron should be aware of and assume the risk of sitting in an unprotected area. However, while limited duty requires no duty to warn, it does warrant facility operators a two prong duty of care to provide a reasonably safe environment: to provide as many screened seats as may be reasonably expected for those spectators who want them on an ordinary occasion (Quinn v. Recreation Park Association, 1935) and to provide spectators protection in the most dangerous portion of the stands (Schneider v. American Hockey & Ice Skating Center, Inc., 2001). In 2000, the Canada Safety Council were concerned hockey pucks “caused serious injuries” (“Protecting Hockey Spectators”) and stated spectator injury from pucks was “a longstanding concern” in April 2003 (“Spectator Safety for Indoor Arenas”).
Throughout ninety decades of professional ice hockey, there have been many incidents of patrons being injured, sometimes seriously, by pucks leaving the ice and entering the stands. A study in 2000 by Milzman found that during 127 hockey games, “there were 122 people injured by pucks, 90 of which required stitches. Of the total injured 45% required transport to a hospital emergency room.” The study also found that “females and children were injured 2.6 times more frequently than adult males. As with baseball, most reported injuries involve the head and face” (Milzman, 2000).
Nevertheless, it was not until a 13 year old girl named Brittanie Cecil was killed by a puck in Columbus, Ohio, in 2002, that professional ice hockey leagues took increased preventative measures to protect invitees. A Sports Illustrated article notes, “Brittanie was the first fan in league history to be killed by a puck” (Wertheim, L.J., 2002). Immediately after the incident, the NHL and minor league professional teams mandated the use of netting above the glass in the corners and end zones as soon as possible for the 2002-2003 Season.
In the 2009-2010 NHL Official Rules, section 1.3 Boards and Glass specifically states: “Affixed to the boards and extending vertically shall be approved safety glass extending eight feet (8’) above the boards at each end of the rink and not less than five feet (5’) along both sides of the rink.” However, Section 1.4 Spectator Netting is more vague: “Spectator netting shall be hung in the ends of the arena, of a height, type, and in a manner approved by the League.” Usually the netting stretches to the ceiling or protects the seating in the lower bowl.
Legally, under limited duty, the Columbus Blue Jackets would not have to compensate the family or make league-wide safety changes. Yet, as a result of Cecil’s young age and heightened community and national attention, the league’s changing of the glass and netting standards was a socially responsible thing to do; it was good public relations with the media; and it would help reduce future league and facility liability.
For the NHL, I concur that limited duty should be applied because the risks are open and obvious and logically assumable. Now that the netting stretches to protect patrons in the lower bowl at the corners and end zone, the NHL helps protect fans from an inherent risk of the game without changing the nature of the game. Warnings are made on the public address system at the beginning of the match and on the center or end video boards before each period. Spectators are often held in vomitoria while the puck is in play and allowed to return to their seats when the puck has stopped (Nemarik v. The Los Angeles Kings Hockey Club, L.P., 2002). Assumption of risk disclaimers are printed on the backs of tickets. The glass on the ends and corners are higher than in the center and have a film on both sides of the glass so shards do not go everywhere if the glass is broken. Also of significance is that NHL events have limited distractions inside the bowl area while the puck is in play; the t-shirt cannon, crowd participation, and entertainment use of video boards or non-game use takes place during time outs or in between periods.
“[O]wners and operators of hockey and baseball facilities have a duty to provide additional protection to fans in those seats where the danger of pucks or balls going into the stands is greatest” (Wolohan, 2009). For all of the previously reasons, I believe the league satisfies this duty and has effective strategies to provide a reasonably safe seating environment.
Air Quality
The concept that premise operators are in the best position to discover unknown hazards is the foundation of the legal duty to inspect. Once a hazard is discovered, a reasonable and prudent facility operator should then “take reasonable steps to remedy the problem or to warn participants” (Yasser, 1985, p. 38). Ice hockey rinks face a unique issue of poor indoor air quality, but currently only three states require the monitoring of air quality in arenas.
Combustion pollutants, while less obvious than most hazards, can pose severe health risks for some spectators, players, and workers inside closed venues. Contaminants are emitted “from the exhaust of fuel-fired ice resurfacers. Combustion pollutants are produced whenever any fuel such as gasoline, propane, or diesel is burned.” (U.S. EPA, 2009). The engines can also emit high levels of carbon monoxide (CO) and toxic compounds such as benzene, which is especially problematic for engines operating in areas with limited access to fresh air (U.S. EPA, 2002). High temperatures, high humidity and poor ventilation can also cause increased concentrations of the pollutants.
An investigative video report produced in April 2009 by ESPN E:60 entitled Danger in the Air, stated that in the previous three months, 200 people were sick due to ice resurfacing machine emissions. Improper maintenance of machinery can lead to the release of dangerous levels of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ultra fine particulate matter (PM). These dangers can increase the proclivity for asthma and lung disease. The E:60 feature reporter tested the air quality in 34 rinks in 14 states. Of the rinks that used natural gas or propane ice resurfacers, “one-third had dangerous levels of carbon monoxide, nitrous dioxide, or ultra fine particles” (ESPN, 2009).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed regulations on large industrial spark ignition (Large SI) engines over the last five years in response to awareness of the adverse health risks posed by their emissions. Unfortunately, as the investigative video proved, the EPAs guidelines for reduced emissions and proper maintenance are not being adhered to closely - or at all. Of premise operators’ options to discontinue the activity, modify it, or warn the patron of the danger, the NHL has chosen to modify the situation so their arenas have less pollution. “Continued monitoring of local air quality and attention to ventilation will always be an important responsibility of operators and owners” (U.S. EPA, 2002).
Air pollution is not an open and obvious risk to most NHL patrons. While it is not one-hundred percent avoidable, air pollution is not an inherent hazard of indoor hockey because enough preventative measures can be taken to reduce emissions and exposure. First, air pollution is not a primary concern in NHL facilities primarily because of the size of their heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems which are capable of redistributing air within the facility and reduces heat and humidity in the building; both outcomes serve to decrease combustion pollutant concentration levels. Second, a facility large enough to host an NHL game has an exhaust system - both manual and automatic - which can effectively remove air to the outside. This ventilation system can also be used for concert smoke from pyrotechnics or odors from bull riding and the rodeo. Third, NHL facilities are purchasing machines with Large SI engines that were manufactured under the EPA’s reduced emissions guidelines or electric ice resurfacers. The electric machinery uses no gas or propane, emits no CO or NO2, and releases minimal PM.
The only additional control strategy to ensure air quality in all facilities would be a mandate by the NHL for operators to monitor the air on a routine basis, to educate employees and facility managers on proper ventilation after machine usage, and to regularly test the ventilation systems in place to ensure their effective operation. Regulated indoor ice hockey facilities had ten times lower combustion pollutants than hockey facilities that were not (ESPN, 2009).
Terrorism
Terrorism is a risk that NHL teams and facility managers as well as fans and spectators are thinking about and becoming prepared for. The applicable rule for liability is found in the Restatement of Torts (Second) § 344 (1965):
“A possessor of land … is subject to liability to members of the public … for physical harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons, and by the failure of the possessor to exercise reasonable care to (a) discover that such acts are being done or are likely to be done, or (b) give a warning adequate to enable the visitors to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect them against it.”
While an act of terrorism is by nature unpredictable, this does not preclude broad foreseeability. “Sport venue managers and spectators perceive terrorism as a foreseeable threat to U.S. sport facilities and believe it is only a matter of time before they are attacked” (Baker et al., 2007). Foreseeability therefore means there are various preventative measures facilities can take to reduce the severity and magnitude of the attack.
National Hockey League arenas are classified in the Commercial Facilities Section, and their lead agency is the U.S. Department of Homeland Security according to the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. Given the common practices set forth by Homeland Security in the “Protective Measures Guide for U.S. Sports Leagues” and the “Mass Evacuation Planning Guide,” buildings have some constructive notice of risk. The Department of Homeland Security recognizes each sporting facility and event has different characteristics and elements, but has still set in place guidelines for action plans and securing facilities.
A highly publicized rivalry or NHL event-such as the Stanley Cup Final or the Winter Classic, where the potential amount of loss could be high and media coverage is always maximized-would be a more susceptible and attractive target for a terrorist attack. The higher profile the event, the more steps, security efforts, and personnel are increased. The level of security provided depends on the foreseeability of harm (Napper v. Kenwood Drive In Theatre Co., 1958).
For example, since a more common problem is the bomb threat, many tactics and safeguards already exist. Constructive notice becomes actual notice if a warning is called in. Bomb threat sheets can be kept located adjacent to every administrative phone. The probability of a bomb is likely and should be taken seriously until no proof of the bomb is found. A police canine that can detect explosive materials should be used to sweep the facility before every NHL event and kept on site until the event is over. If a bomb is found, proper training of all event staff on how far a radius to clear patrons, whether or not radios can be used, and how to evacuate the building would come in to play. The severity and magnitude of a bomb would depend on size, location, and type.
While this preparedness is adequate, to be more effective, I would propose that emergency plans for NHL arenas and events should include comprehensive staff training for a myriad of terrorist threats and attacks, not just the most common, such as bombs. This may include running active shooter, mass evacuation, and other emergency drills. I think an exceptionally weak area for facilities are bag checks. While every NHL venue now has them, few seem to have staff that conduct them thoroughly enough to detect any device of significant size - such as a gun, an explosive device, or a detonator.
The National Hockey League conducts monthly security audits (Iwata, 2002), but I think that more can be done in the area of NHL venue safety and security. In accordance, “Researchers have reported that there is a lack of security personnel training at sport stadiums relative to guarding against terrorism” (Baker et. al, 2007). Each facility should have a risk assessment method that takes into account the consequence, vulnerability, and threat for every defined risk scenario. It should “identify the target, source of harm, and the conditions that are relevant” so that a deterrence system or measure can be put into place (DHS, 2006). Homeland Security can conduct site visits, train security staff on surveillance detection, and give facilities a Vulnerability Identification Self-Assessment Tool (ViSAT).
Fan (Mis)Behavior
As noted previously in the discussion of terrorism, a premise operator owes its business invitees a duty to protect against the “the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons” (Restatement of Torts, 1965). When a fan becomes unruly, it is the facility manager’s duty, as a servant of the league, to safeguard other clientele from being harmed by the disruptive patron.
Fans accept a culture of violence in ice hockey. Hockey is a sport that unofficially condones fighting between players during the game. Fans recognize particular players as “enforcers;” this type of designated fighter creates no major loss of skill to the team when he is sent to the penalty box. The sport is high paced for the duration of the periods, which excites the crowd to a high energy level. The fans’ culture can in turn imitate the dominating actions, physical altercations, or violent tendencies that often arise in a game. This can especially be piqued when favorite players have had exchanges on the ice or during charged rivalry games when a collective effervescence permeates the arena’s atmosphere. Another underlying factor that is ubiquitous to the big four sporting leagues is alcohol consumption. Even imbibing slightly can cause some zealous fans to cross the line from rowdy to obscene or violent.
Many arenas and stadiums work with the Techniques for Effective Alcohol Management (TEAM) coalition to develop alcohol management systems. Undercover officers are also brought in to audit beer vendors. Two steps all facilities take are bag checks and prohibiting weapons inside - which could increase the severity and magnitude of altercations if permitted. Unlike the National Basketball Association (NBA), National Football League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB), and Major League Soccer (MLS), the NHL does not have a fan code of conduct. Even the PGA Tour - a low energy, non-violent sport - has golf “etiquette” publicized and for which violation results in immediate removal from the event. There are individual arenas with rules for fan behavior and hotlines patrons can call or text to report obscene or disruptive behavior. Sometimes a specific NHL event has a code of conduct, such as the Winter Classic in New York.
A little over a year and a half ago, in addition to policies and procedures, a Fan Code of Conduct was put into place for the first annual Winter Classic. The Winter Classic occurs on New Year’s Day and is a regular season game played outside. This is one of the newest, largest hockey events of the year - held in outdoor stadiums such as Ralph Wilson Stadium, Fenway Park, and Wrigley Field. At Wrigley Field on January 1, 2009, the rules for fan behavior included no tailgating in Cubs parking lots, no smoking, and a request to “respect other guests’ ability to enjoy the game.” The rules stated: “Loud or obnoxious fans could be asked to leave the ballpark if their behavior is deemed to be offensive to guests around them” (Bridgestone FAQ, 2008).
I think the area of fan behavior is potential risk that is not being handled as proactively as it could. Implementing a league-wide code of conduct for fans would send a message of concern and forethought and would allow the patron to alter their intended behavior. Once a code was in place, it should be well publicized. For example, the NFL’s new behavior policy is posted in all 32 clubs’ stadiums; it is also posted online, stated on video boards before and during games, sent out with ticket mailings (such as to season ticket holders), and sometimes handed out on small, printed cards with other promotional giveaways.
The text alerts are also good ways for security to monitor crowd behavior during NHL events when crowd energy is elevated. I think this should be a required feature at all arenas within the next two years. If there were a fan code of conduct, then patrons would know exactly which type of behaviors to report. Staff, such as ushers and security, could have training for the new code of conduct so they can first warn patrons who are becoming disorderly that they could be ejected, lose their tickets for the season, or even be arrested. The code of conduct gives the staff leverage; the patron has something to lose, so the staff has something to use. Security and police officers must then be given the authority to follow through and to escort people from the building. While there is some concern over law verses policy for spectators, a ticket is ultimately a limited license and revocable at the facility or league’s discretion (Fitzgerald, 2008).
Conclusion
The National Hockey League works closely with facility managers to ensure a reasonably safe environment for its fans and other invitees. Whether the duty is to inspect, maintain equipment, protect from the intentional or unintentional acts of third persons or to provide adequate number of screened seating areas, the NHL has at least some measures in place to fulfill these obligations. Overall, the National Hockey League provides a safe and enjoyable event for patrons, but some steps to reduce air pollution, minimize terrorist threats, and enforce a fan code of conduct could ultimately enhance and benefit the experience.