Kaku should have to mow this dudes lawn all summer with a push mower. Push mowing a lawn. In the Midwest. In August. That might teach him some respect.
IMO Kaku’s suspension has to be in this range. In both of these cases the actions were taken on the field against players in the game. Mullan’s even has the possibility he was playing a live ball (I mean, we all know what happened, but Zakuani did have the ball during live play). Kaku drilled a dead ball at a fan. Even if he was aiming for the ad board and shanked it that’s still an order of magnitude above Clark/Mullan. There’s a reason those two suspensions stand out as the largest ever given for non substance abuse/PEDs, this should surpass them. I predict he’ll get 3 games, 5 at the most though.
I will say that I've had a ball like that stopped by the advertising boards before it hit me - once. At Arrowhead, a very frustrated Nick Garcia kicked a ball like that. The differences being 1) there was literally nobody behind me, I was in the far end of the stadium with only tarps beside me, 2) Garcia was probably 15 yards (not 10-15 feet) away, 3) he kept the ball down. Nick shouldn't have done it, but to be fair he may have thought nobody was there (I was the only photographer in that corner, and mostly hidden by the signboard) whereas Kaku knew full well that there was a packed section of fans right behind the video boards. It did freak me out for a few moments as I realized what a sitting duck I was. Even at that distance, had I been looking straight at him (and I wasn't) I'm not sure I could've dodged the shot had it been coming at my head.
The fan was treated for a concussion, yes? There is likely to be a lawsuit against both teams, the league, and Kaku. An example should be made. I agree that this is “more serious” than an offense against a player during the run of play. Injuring a fan is inexcusable, and this penalty should set a new standard.
I doubt the lawsuit would go anywhere. Have you ever read the back of the ticket? It is high profile enough, and the player was absolutely stupid, so a lawsuit would likely result in a payoff to stop it in its tracks to kill the negative publicity of defending against it, but I'm pretty sure the defense would be successful. And there doesn't always need to be a lawsuit. If SKC and NYRB "do the right things" and take care of the fan, then there's no real need for a lawyer (or team of lawyers) to syphon off a bunch of money.
Any lawyer worth their salt could win that case for the plaintiff IMO, unless the disclaimers cover deliberate violent acts somehow. I could be wrong.
Win against who? Kaku? I don't see a win against Sporting or MLS or CMP. And no criminal charges have been filed. They were against Cantona, but he targeted the fan he attacked.
I think Kaku lost his cool and should get a lengthy suspension from the league. This "teach him a lesson stuff" doesn't really do anything. He isn't a repeat offender and frankly any player who looses his cool isn't going to think "Aw man Kaku got suspended, let me not kick this ball in anger"
My ticket doesn't have a back. It's a QR code on my phone screen. Crap, they probably hide those disclaimers in the app TOS. There were at least two settlements where fans sued the Indiana Pacers after claiming concussions from getting punched during the "Malice in the Palace". The law is probably still heavily on the side of the sports teams, but the disclaimers might not cover absolutely everything when there is an act of malicious conduct as opposed to dangers that are incidental to the event.
I am not a lawyer but I see no way the disclaimers can protect against criminal action. Not saying the Kaku incident was. I do think many a lawyer could win a case that it was criminal. If a person gets shot at a sporting event a disclaimer can't protect that. Obviously that is extreme but there has to be a line somewhere. Another extreme and another country was the Hillsborough tragedy. There were lawsuits and charges. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/28/world/europe/uk-hillsborough-soccer-stadium-charges.html I understand this event is in no way comparable. Just using it to say there has to be a line that the disclaimers don't cover.