Pepper Spray and Pandemonium: A Shocking End to “The Game”

Credit: Detroit Free Press

As the final whistle blew on the 120th rendition of “The Game,” Michigan players jubilantly celebrated their fourth straight victory over Ohio State as the fans in Columbus looked on in dismay. However, the happy atmosphere soured almost instantly as a scuffle erupted, transforming this storied rivalry into a chaotic postgame brouhaha. But unlike the skirmishes that have defined the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry, this altercation spurred police intervention—and the use of pepper spray to disband the conflict—leaving players, media, and staff grimacing in pain. After a fierce finish to college football’s biggest rivalry game, a firestorm of criticism was ignited, raising questions about how this shocking conclusion to “The Game” will impact the future of both teams. 

A Chippy Rivalry Renewed

Michigan’s victory marked a continuation of its recent dominance over Ohio State, but the game itself diverged from precedent. Unlike past seasons, Ohio State was a heavy favorite heading into their annual battle with the Wolverines. While the fact that the twenty-point underdogs won was shocking, it was far from the game’s only memorable moment—four turnovers and two missed field goals kept fans on their toes at every turn. Despite the matchup being more low-scoring than years prior, the physicality and intensity of the rivalry were the same as always, harkening back to infamous slugfests between the Wolverines and Buckeyes (both literally and figuratively).

The fireworks started early, with a fight between Ohio State freshman Jeremiah Smith and several Michigan players breaking out after the young wide receiver was tackled into the Wolverines’ sideline. While officials and Michigan staff quickly defused the situation, the seeds for postgame chaos had been sown. The teams remained relatively civil until the matchup was all but in hand, with the Wolverines drawing an excessive celebration penalty after stopping the Buckeye offense for the final time. But the real drama unfolded as the teams converged at midfield. 

Flags, Fanfare, and Fisticuffs

In the course of their celebration, a Michigan player grabbed a flag with the school’s iconic ‘Block M’ on it and attempted to plant it in the center of Ohio State’s logo. This drew the ire of several Buckeye players, who raced towards the Wolverines clustered at midfield and began to throw punches. The scene escalated as players, staff, and Columbus police attempted to intervene. At one point, Ohio State’s Jack Sawyer tore the flag away and ripped it from its pole, reigniting the skirmish just as it appeared to be settling down.

It should be noted that this isn’t Michigan’s first notable post-game altercation in recent memory, nor was it Ohio State’s first time having an opposing team’s flag embedded in their home turf. The Wolverines were members of an infamous 2022 fight with Michigan State that led to multiple suspensions and even legal disputes. Michigan also had a midfield conflict with the Spartans after their game this season. On the other side, Oklahoma’s Baker Mayfield was first to plant a flag in Ohio Stadium, doing so after beating Ohio State in 2017. The Wolverines did the same after a victory over the Buckeyes in 2022, with no Ohio State players stepping in to intervene. So, what made this conflict stand out?

The most notable part of yesterday’s altercation was the use of pepper spray by Columbus police to disperse the midfield crowd. While its use is often controversial, pepper spray has been frequently utilized by police to break up large college crowds in the past—including crowds related to athletic events. In the Big Ten (where both Ohio State and Michigan play), pepper spray was used to disperse crowds of Penn State fans after they defeated the Buckeyes in 2005, and Ohio State used the same to control students following the Buckeyes’ National Championship in 2015. In both instances, local police defended their actions (and the Penn State police went as far as to say that they could have done more).

What makes this incident different is that the police did not use pepper spray on potentially intoxicated fans recklessly celebrating a huge victory. Instead, they targeted student-athletes on both teams who had just finished a hard-fought, sixty-minute game—many of whom were not actually involved in the conflict at all. In one widely shared video, the Wolverines’ Mason Graham (a potential first-round draft pick) is seen trying to pick a teammate up off the turf before he is sprayed by an officer. The fact that this is the first time pepper spray was used in an on-field conflict (as well as the high future earning potential of many of the individuals involved) has led fans to speculate about whether players on both teams may be punished further or pursue legal action against the offending officers. But do these theories have any merit? Let’s take a look at the potential punishments that may be coming for Ohio State and Michigan, as well as the viability of any claims the players may have against the police who pepper sprayed them.

Implications for Players and Schools

Will the players on either side be punished further for this incident? While the Wolverines were not disciplined for their midfield fight with Michigan State earlier this fall, other cases may be more helpful in informing potential outcomes for this high-profile conflict. In 2004, a game between Clemson and South Carolina was derailed when a late hit on the Gamecocks’ quarterback sparked an all-out brawl, including one Clemson player kicking a helmetless South Carolina player. While both the SEC and ACC handed out individual punishments to players, both schools also reprimanded their teams by barring them from participation in a bowl game that season. Then, in 2006, a massive fight between Florida International University (FIU) and Miami (which included a player swinging his helmet as a weapon) led to thirty-one players being suspended by their respective schools or conferences. Could similar punishment be inbound for Michigan or Ohio State?

Since punches were thrown, player punishments appear to be likely. The Clemson and Miami brawls show that schools and conferences have a no-tolerance policy for on-field violence, which is likely to carry over to this incident despite it taking place in another conference. On the other hand, both of those fights happened while the game was still ongoing (unlike this fight or Michigan’s previous skirmishes with Michigan State) and did not require the use of pepper spray. The fact that the Wolverines’ previous conflict went unpunished highlights potential reluctance by the Big Ten to impose punishments for post-game acts, which could safeguard the players from suspension. 

In contrast to individual suspensions, a team-wide punishment (such as a self-imposed bowl ban) appears unlikely, despite these acts being in apparent violation of the Big Ten’s sportsmanship policy. Both Michigan and Ohio State are bowl-eligible, and the Buckeyes are in contention for a spot in the College Football Playoff (though their chances likely took a dip with this week’s loss). The Big Ten (as well as both schools) will likely look to avoid the massive loss of revenue that would result from two of the conference’s biggest programs not participating in bowl games. This revenue loss becomes especially important in the face of a House settlement that will allow schools to share revenue with their student-athletes. Since Ohio State and Michigan have both seated themselves at the front of this name, image, and likeness (NIL) movement, the programs would look to avoid hurting their pockets by losing a revenue-generating game. Thus, it seems unlikely that the Big Ten (or the schools themselves) will limit themselves from appearing in bowl games. Despite both schools appearing to be safe from punishment, players may still look to pursue recourse for their injuries from this fight.

Could Players Pursue Legal Action?

If Ohio State or Michigan players elect to pursue legal action against the officers who pepper sprayed them, several state law claims would be at the athletes’ disposal. Fans have already begun to speculate about whether players could sue for negligence or assault and battery under Ohio law, allowing these athletes to claim damages for their injuries from this experience. But do the players have a case for any of these claims? Let’s take a look:

Assault and Battery

As pepper spraying someone could be considered an unlawful use of force, it could give rise to a claim for assault and battery. These two claims are considered together under Ohio law, with battery being an enhanced degree of assault. Assault requires an act that would create a reasonable concern of immediate harm or contact, while battery involves actual contact that is harmful or offensive to the victim.

For a plaintiff to bring a claim for assault, they must show: (1) an intent to cause harm; (2) an attempt to cause harm; and (3) that the attempt was immediate or would happen without intervention. In this incident, the players would argue that the officers used the pepper spray with the knowledge that it could cause harm to them, thus constituting intent to cause injury as well as an actual attempt to cause that same harm. The players would also argue that the uncontrolled nature of the conflict meant that intervention would not be coming, meaning the alleged assault was immediate. On the other hand, officers would argue that pepper spray is a common method of crowd control by police, meaning their intent was to act as an intervening authority and disband the crowd as opposed to causing harm to the players. Despite this, courts have “consistently concluded that using pepper spray is excessive force in cases where the crime is a minor infraction, the arrestee surrenders, is secured, and is not acting violently, and there is no threat to the officers or anyone else.” Here, the fact that officers seemed to spray players and team staffers who were not acting violently would seem to undermine an officer’s defense of necessity. While the players may have difficulty proving the intent of the police, the assault portion of their claim appears to have merit. 

For a plaintiff to bring a claim for battery, they would need to show that there was actual, unauthorized physical contact during the assault. This part of the claim appears relatively easy for players to prove, as there is video evidence of the officers making contact with various athletes as they sprayed the pepper spray. Body camera footage of the officers involved may also be helpful in supporting this contention. Thus, the players appear to be able to properly bring a claim for assault and battery against the Columbus officers.

Negligence

The players may also attempt to claim negligence by saying that the officers’ use of force was unreasonable. Negligence is defined as a failure to exercise reasonable care, which leads to harm to a victim. A plaintiff can bring a claim for negligence by showing: (1) that the defendant owed them a duty of care, such as the duty to avoid unreasonable force; (2) that the defendant breached their duty of care by acting unreasonably; (3) that the defendant’s breach was the actual cause of (or foreseeably resulted in) the plaintiff’s injury; and (4) that the plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result of these injuries.

In this altercation, the players would likely argue that the officers owed them a duty of care to avoid using unreasonable force against them. On-field police are typically stationed to protect players and staff during games. Players would argue that police could have resolved the conflict without use of pepper spray, so their failure to do so represented an officer action that breached their duty of care to the athletes. Further, since the pepper spray used by the officers harmed the players directly (and there is video evidence of this fact), the affected athletes should easily be able to prove causation and that they suffered damages. If the pepper spray injuries suffered by players cause them to miss practices and games or impact their draft stock, these athletes may be able to claim further damages as well. It once again appears that Michigan and Ohio State players would have valid claims for negligence against the officers.

On the other hand, the officers would likely claim protection under the public duty doctrine, which provides that a state agency (such as the police) does not have a duty of care to specific individuals but rather to the public as a whole. If the public duty doctrine were to apply here, the players’ negligence claims would fail, as the officers did not owe them an individualized duty of care. However, a 2010 Ohio Supreme Court decision held that the public duty doctrine no longer applies to civil claims (like negligence) against public employees for wanton or reckless misconduct. As this defense would likely no longer apply to the officers, a player’s claim of negligence would seemingly be allowed to proceed here.

Officer Defenses and Challenges

The officers may also have several broad defenses in response to these claims. First officers may argue that they have qualified immunity that would protect them against individual liability to the players for their actions. The police would argue that their use of pepper spray was necessary to break up the conflict as well as to prevent harm to themselves and others, making their actions reasonable given the circumstances. However, the fact that there have been numerous other on-field conflicts in college football that have not required pepper spray would likely undermine this defense, as do the previous findings of pepper spray use as excessive force discussed supra.

The officers may also argue that the players were acting unlawfully or posed a threat to the police (or other team or media individuals who were not wearing helmets and pads), thus justifying their use of pepper spray. As evidenced by the Michigan-Michigan State tunnel fight of 2022, players can be held legally responsible for their post-game actions. If the postgame fight between the Buckeyes and Wolverines reached a point where officers determined they could not mediate the conflict through physical force alone (or that players were engaged in unlawful conduct), it may have justified the officers’ pepper spray use. Even if this defense does not fully clear the Columbus police from liability, they may use it to argue comparative fault, saying that since it was the players who incited the altercation, the athletes’ recovery should be reduced or eliminated entirely. In Ohio, players would have to be found to be less than 49% at fault for the incident in order to recover from the officers. While this defense may eliminate the claims of some players who were actually fighting, it would not be as helpful for claims made by players who did not partake in the conflict but were nonetheless injured, as seen in the video of Mason Graham.

Alternative Remedies for Players

If economic relief in the form of damages is unavailable to the players, they may have other options for recourse. One non-legal remedy would be for the athletes to file complaints with local law enforcement oversight bodies. Players would likely be able to make formal complaints with the Columbus police department (or civilian oversight boards), which would trigger investigations into officer conduct. While these investigations would not result in any payout to the players, they may result in the suspension or dismissal of offending officers, helping to avoid repetition of this incident.

It is just as likely that players may want to move forward from this incident entirely, never bringing any sort of response or claim against the Columbus Police Department. While it is understandable that athletes would not want to relive such an incident, the fact that this altercation injured players on both teams means that adjustments will need to be made to how police (and schools) handle post-game interactions. Whether those shifts come through litigation or policy changes by the NCAA (or the Big Ten) will remain to be seen, but one thing is clear—this sort of incident should never happen again.

What Comes Next?

As investigations unfold, both programs face mounting pressure to address the incident, while fans and analysts debate its broader implications. For Michigan and Ohio State, this clash may prove a defining moment in a rivalry already steeped in tradition and controversy. For the players, the potential for legal action against the Columbus police looms large, potentially setting a new precedent in how law enforcement handles high-tension sporting events.

This year’s edition of “The Game” will not only be remembered for Michigan’s shocking triumph but also for the chaos that ensued—an unforgettable chapter in college football’s most storied rivalry.