Abstract: The dispute between criminal injury and civil jury in competitive sports comes from the actual extent of injury, the options among the industrial autonomy, civil law adjustment and criminal law system, as well as the specification determination of the rule breach, legal interest infringement and social appropriateness, plus the misconception of criminal and civil boundary in qualitative analysis of sport injury. It also lies in the fact of difficulty to trace the criminal liability basis of the perpetrator. Law adjustment of injury in sports should distinguish objective harm from subjective fault, which is a dialectical unity. The objective harm is the content and degree of subjective guilt and the subjective fault is the objective hazard which has occurred. The distinction between criminal injury and civil injury in competitive sports should be based on the fact whether it is the infringement of human rights of all citizens, whether it is a controllable behavior in terms of the objective harm, and whether there is a subjective fault as to the punishment deserved. Specifically, deliberateness and compliance negligence is the boundary between civil and criminal regulations in competitive sports; compliance negligence and violation negligence is the yardstick to the adjustment of civil and administrative law; while compliance deliberateness and minor injury is the basis of criminal reconciliation, and punishment is given in accordance with the specific crimes.