Jerry Lawler in serious condition

[ohtani's jacket]

So now you're saying they should have called the show off because it was Lawler? What if it had been a cameraman or a security guard or the physician at ringside even?

Then the situation is very different? If you honestly can't discern how those scenarios represent vastly different degrees of severity to the audience and the performers you should probably think about this more.

 

Like, you call out the idea that the show should be stopped and finished with prepared footage and health updates as "crass" as opposed to, uh, having visibly shaken pro wrestlers go out and perform a skit immediately after learning their friend is within inches of death?

 

So, you're saying that if it happens to someone else on the WWE's staff it doesn't matter but because it's Jerry Lawler it's different? It was an emergency at a live event and that's how it should be dealt with. If Lawler and his family and friends and work colleagues have an opinion about whether the show should have continued fine, but ffs the guy would be dead if not for the people at the scene, what difference would it have made if they'd gone to tape? If they'd gone to tape it would have basically been hype, probably using some soundbytes from Lawler's commentary. It's basically saying you can just switch it off and the next time you turn on WWE programming Lawler would be conveniently gone. And if they'd have gone to tape, there would be just as much criticism that they piled on the self-promoting instead of holding some sort of vigil or whatever it is you're meant to do in this sort of situation.

 

How prepared for these things you can you be? Are television networks prepared for veteran sports broadcasters to have a medical emergency during a game? Do TV stations have contingency plans in store if a TV anchorman has a massive heart attack on air? In both cases, the director will cut to something else, but that type of scenario would create a panic on set and in the booth. It's not an easy situation by any means. I think the WWE should be applauded for the way they handled the medical emergency and posturing about whether the show should have continued or not is unnecessary.

[Johnny Sorrow]

This is his greatest comeback ever.

 

Apparently, Canadian Hospital food rules. And you have to LOVE Lawler eating the salad. You know he came up with that.

[ohtani's jacket]

Also sports are legitimate competitive events between independently operated parties whose scheduling effects myriad economies and wrestling is essentially a dramatic simulation of a sporting event utilizing traveling troupes of performers that could and have run virtually the same show every night.

So if Marv Albert dropped dead during the NBA playoffs the show would go on? You can't have it both ways.

[blueminister]

So, you're saying that if it happens to someone else on the WWE's staff it doesn't matter but because it's Jerry Lawler it's different? It was an emergency at a live event and that's how it should be dealt with. If Lawler and his family and friends and work colleagues have an opinion about whether the show should have continued fine, but ffs the guy would be dead if not for the people at the scene, what difference would it have made if they'd gone to tape? If they'd gone to tape it would have basically been hype, probably using some soundbytes from Lawler's commentary. It's basically saying you can just switch it off and the next time you turn on WWE programming Lawler would be conveniently gone. And if they'd have gone to tape, there would be just as much criticism that they piled on the self-promoting instead of holding some sort of vigil or whatever it is you're meant to do in this sort of situation.

 

How prepared for these things you can you be? Are television networks prepared for veteran sports broadcasters to have a medical emergency during a game? Do TV stations have contingency plans in store if a TV anchorman has a massive heart attack on air? In both cases, the director will cut to something else, but that type of scenario would create a panic on set and in the booth. It's not an easy situation by any means. I think the WWE should be applauded for the way they handled the medical emergency and posturing about whether the show should have continued or not is unnecessary.

This post is all over the place but my short reply is: yes, strictly in the terms of the "should RAW be stopped" argument Lawler collapsing deserves more consideration than a hypothetical stagehand for reasons which would be apparent if you thought about it for, like, just a minute.

[blueminister]

Also sports are legitimate competitive events between independently operated parties whose scheduling effects myriad economies and wrestling is essentially a dramatic simulation of a sporting event utilizing traveling troupes of performers that could and have run virtually the same show every night.

So if Marv Albert dropped dead during the NBA playoffs the show would go on? You can't have it both ways.

 

Seeing as the post you quoted just outlined how they aren't comparable situations I'm not sure why you're accusing me of trying to "have it both ways." It's not like I'm saying it would be cool if ROH did it because they're scrappy underdogs who have a duty to deliver pure wrestling every night just to get that dollar or whatever.

 

I mean, you at least agree with me that actual sports would have a different set of considerations owing to being anchored to greater economic stakes and perpendicular real world schedules than a fake weekly wrestling show, right?

[Johnny Sorrow]

Are television networks prepared for veteran sports broadcasters to have a medical emergency during a game?

Dick Vitale died on the air about 20 years ago and no one has even noticed. It's a Weekend At Bernie's deal.

[ohtani's jacket]

Also sports are legitimate competitive events between independently operated parties whose scheduling effects myriad economies and wrestling is essentially a dramatic simulation of a sporting event utilizing traveling troupes of performers that could and have run virtually the same show every night.

So if Marv Albert dropped dead during the NBA playoffs the show would go on? You can't have it both ways.

 

Seeing as the post you quoted just outlined how they aren't comparable situations I'm not sure why you're accusing me of trying to "have it both ways." It's not like I'm saying it would be cool if ROH did it because they're scrappy underdogs who have a duty to deliver pure wrestling every night just to get that dollar or whatever.

 

I mean, you at least agree with me that actual sports would have a different set of considerations owing to being anchored to greater economic stakes and perpendicular real world schedules than a fake weekly wrestling show, right?

 

I'm sure that actual sports would have a different set of considerations, but the basic dilemma is the same. It doesn't change just because WWE is a fake wrestling TV show.

[PeteF3]

When John McSherry died on the field, no. When Larry Dierker suffered a brain aneurysm in the dugout, no.

 

When Ray Chapman got carted off the field, never to regain consciousness...yes.

It should be pointed out that these two no's took place in the 1990s and the yes took place in 1920.

 

I had one example from 1920 among many others, almost all of which were within our lifetimes and others (Hughes) within some of our lifetimes.

[Marty]

I could be wrong, but did the NFL not stop the Bears-Lions game when Chuck Hughes died?

 

Since sports was already covered...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_enter...g_a_performance

 

Ones that stand out for me:

 

- Gareth Jones dying backstage during the play Underground. Show not only went on, but the actors and director completely improvised things and I don't believe they ever informed the audience of Jones' death. Sure, this was in 1958, but this was probably even worse than how Owen Hart was handled.

 

- Harry Kalas' heart attack. The Phillies and Nationals postponed their game to another day when it happened. Good comparison to Lawler's case.

 

I've actually taken part in a play that was done 10 times, and there were times when "stuff happens". So much so that I ended up getting pissed about it, only to be reminded "it's show biz, things happen, show goes on". So there is that mentality, but that's for the odd botch and such. I think there's a difference between that and someone's life at stake, which is definitely the case with Lawler. At the very least, I would've paused things at that point, fill the TV time with whatever else, and maybe only proceeded when news was improving. If it was going to take a while for any positive news to come in, at a certain point, stop the show proper.

[ohtani's jacket]

The game where Hughes died was played out in silence. There are countless examples of an event continuing after a death from the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix where Ayrton Senna died (which was raced after Roland Ratzenberger died in qualifying) to the 1984 variety show where Welsh comedian Tommy Cooper died on stage. Right or wrong it happens. "The show must go on" originally comes from the circus not the theatre and there is an example here of the show continuing after a circus death: http://articles.cnn.com/2004-05-23/us/circ...swoman?_s=PM:US I'm sure Vince had all sorts of bullshit reasons for continuing with the show, but how wrestling is being dressed up as being worse than the rest is beyond me.

[Gregor]

When John McSherry died on the field, no. When Larry Dierker suffered a brain aneurysm in the dugout, no.

 

When Ray Chapman got carted off the field, never to regain consciousness...yes.

It should be pointed out that these two no's took place in the 1990s and the yes took place in 1920.

 

I had one example from 1920 among many others, almost all of which were within our lifetimes and others (Hughes) within some of our lifetimes.

 

I didn't mean it as a criticism of the examples you were using. It was just something that I thought should be noted.

[flyonthewall2983]

This is his greatest comeback ever.

 

Apparently, Canadian Hospital food rules. And you have to LOVE Lawler eating the salad. You know he came up with that.

 

The diet Coke is a little amusing. Doesn't he own a lot of Coca-Cola memorabilia?

[goc]

In his book he talks about when he was younger he would drink somewhere around 10 cans of Coke a day.

[jdw]

Does anyone think if the first base umpire dropped down with a heart attack that they would "finish the inning" even as he was being tended to "on the field"?

When John McSherry died on the field, no. When Larry Dierker suffered a brain aneurysm in the dugout, no.

Did they stop the play of the game (i.e. Stop the Match on Raw) while the doctors came out to deal with McSherry? With Dierker.

 

They did. Moot point.

 

John

[jdw]

So, you're saying that if it happens to someone else on the WWE's staff it doesn't matter but because it's Jerry Lawler it's different? It was an emergency at a live event and that's how it should be dealt with. If Lawler and his family and friends and work colleagues have an opinion about whether the show should have continued fine, but ffs the guy would be dead if not for the people at the scene, what difference would it have made if they'd gone to tape? If they'd gone to tape it would have basically been hype, probably using some soundbytes from Lawler's commentary. It's basically saying you can just switch it off and the next time you turn on WWE programming Lawler would be conveniently gone. And if they'd have gone to tape, there would be just as much criticism that they piled on the self-promoting instead of holding some sort of vigil or whatever it is you're meant to do in this sort of situation.

 

How prepared for these things you can you be? Are television networks prepared for veteran sports broadcasters to have a medical emergency during a game? Do TV stations have contingency plans in store if a TV anchorman has a massive heart attack on air? In both cases, the director will cut to something else, but that type of scenario would create a panic on set and in the booth. It's not an easy situation by any means. I think the WWE should be applauded for the way they handled the medical emergency and posturing about whether the show should have continued or not is unnecessary.

This post is all over the place but my short reply is: yes, strictly in the terms of the "should RAW be stopped" argument Lawler collapsing deserves more consideration than a hypothetical stagehand for reasons which would be apparent if you thought about it for, like, just a minute.

 

All of the place it right, and he's just completely ignoring the facts:

 

There was a wrestling match going on while Lawler had a near-death heart attack at ringside in the "active area" of the WWE live tv production. They kept the match going. They kept Cole talking, though he had issues calling the match. They kept the cameras rolling.

 

Daniel flat out ducks whether the WWE was wrong to not:

 

* cut to commerical

* stop the match

* focus on tending to Lawler before worrying about the TV Product

 

No straight answers on that, and instead just goes in circles.

 

John

[Log]

I'd doubt my station would cancel a newscast if an anchor had a heart attack on set.

 

Then again, that would require a news anchor to have a heart.

[ohtani's jacket]

All of the place it right, and he's just completely ignoring the facts:

 

There was a wrestling match going on while Lawler had a near-death heart attack at ringside in the "active area" of the WWE live tv production. They kept the match going. They kept Cole talking, though he had issues calling the match. They kept the cameras rolling.

 

Daniel flat out ducks whether the WWE was wrong to not:

 

* cut to commerical

* stop the match

* focus on tending to Lawler before worrying about the TV Product

 

No straight answers on that, and instead just goes in circles.

 

John

They could have cut to commercial, but I don't think they should have stopped the match and had the wrestlers and crowd stand around watching Lawler. Better to divert or distract the audience's attention so the medical staff can do their job. Don't see how encouraging onlookers helps.

[blueminister]

I'm sure that actual sports would have a different set of considerations, but the basic dilemma is the same. It doesn't change just because WWE is a fake wrestling TV show.

I think, for a lot of people, the dilemma changes at a fundamental level exactly because of that.

[Loss]

I will say I don't think "not part of tonight's entertainment" is assertive enough when something like this happens. I don't know what they should say, but it should be more blunt, somewhere in between that and "every single aspect of what we normally show you is fake, but this is real life, not to be confused with our scripted storylines designed to manipulate your emotions and make money".

[Coffey]

So how long until "this is not a part of tonight's entertainment" is worked into an angle, the same way they did it with the referees throwing up the X sign?

[kjh]

John, I think I personally have been numbed over the years by Vince McMahon's exploitation of death that I for one didn't get all too offended at how WWE handled things. Well, until Michael Cole said on Fox & Friends that "we me made the decision during the break that out of respect for Jerry we weren't going to do commentary anymore", which just makes it sound like Vince came up with the least he could do not to look like a heartless bastard, while not trying to draw too much attention to the situation.

 

Coffey, not to mention the same way as the genuinely hushed tones that were used to talk about Owen's death were recreated in future injury angles.

[Al]

The Harry Kalas episode is a good example, I think. He died something like 90 minutes before the game. The game went on, as did the Phillies' broadcast of the game.

 

One thing that should merit consideration in a case like this. Lawler of course didn't die, he had a health emergency. If he, or any other person in his situation were to die, the WWE would have an ethical responsibility to inform the family before rushing to live television to announce the news.

 

As far as other examples, soccer has Heysel as the extreme example. 39 fans died in a crush/riot incident before a Cup Final, and the match still took place with riot police on the track.

[Strummer]

Man we've had discussions about this before but I never got the critiquing of all the speeches on the night of Raw is Owen. I completely understand if someone was offended by the decision to continue the show but to look at deeper meanings of all the wrestler's tributes and to extrapolate and conclude "what they really meant" just didn't sit well with me. Hunter specifically. There are tons of examples of his behavior to sight but that wasn't one of them. To clarify I could see the Godfather and Road Dog deal being offensive that night also

[Johnny Sorrow]

Man we've had discussions about this before but I never got the critiquing of all the speeches on the night of Raw is Owen. I completely understand if someone was offended by the decision to continue the show but to look at deeper meanings of all the wrestler's tributes and to extrapolate and conclude "what they really meant" just didn't sit well with me. Hunter specifically. There are tons of examples of his behavior to sight but that wasn't one of them. To clarify I could see the Godfather and Road Dog deal being offensive that night also

Well, don't you know that there was no way HHH could possibly have been that upset because he helped screw Bret and apparently "held Owen down" ? It was obviously just an act.

[sek69]

To be fair, I remember even watching it at the time that Hunter's part came off kind of forced but I figured "hey, even if he's an asshole and fucked with the dude he still watched the guy die so unless he's a complete monster that'll mess you up a little bit".