court case

[crossref]

Did you have some knowledge of the case before it went to court @belladonna ?

 

[Volun-selected]

Is there any video as we cannot really tell too much from that?

If there is, I'm not sure I really want to watch it given the life-altering outcome (I'm a little squeamish about watching stuff like that).

 

[BikingBud]

In the same game !!
And, um, yes !

It's all in the judgement, do read it. Lots of malice

Lots of other context in there that has not been reported

Same game according to the judgement.

Nope a game in May 17 with the game in question in Oct 17!

58. ii) However, even in the "friendly" match between the sides on 8 May 2017, Bracknell played the game in an inappropriately aggressive and intimidatory manner, using "trash talk" (swearing a lot, including using abusive language directed at the opposing players), with the Bracknell players taking their lead from the Defendant, and this carried through into the game on 8 October 2017;

(iii) The inappropriate approach of the Defendant in the first match led to a Sirens player (Keeley) breaking her arm, Claire Cook sustaining a head injury and Sarah-Jane Garside getting punched;

(iv) In the match on 8 October 2017, as Miss Leicester said, the two sides were playing very different games: the Bracknell players, generally much bigger, relied on their size and their aggression whereas Sirens relied on their speed. As the game slipped away from Bracknell, the Bracknell players upped their rough tactics, which included the Defendant driving Miss Leicester to the ground well after the ball had gone, in an "off the ball" incident: I agree with Mr Morrison's assessment of this incident as set out in paragraph 11 above;

(v) The Defendant, despite attempting to dominate the play and use her weight and greater experience (as well as her language) to intimidate the Sirens players, became increasingly frustrated as the game went on and her tactics were seen not to be succeeding;

(vi) This culminated in the incident at 63:02 minutes into the video recording (and therefore towards the end of this 60 minute match) when, after tackling the Claimant, the Defendant succeeded in winding herself: whilst the Defendant was being treated, the Sirens players were celebrating. They may well have been celebrating the fact that they had played so well and the match was effectively won (the score was 14-0) but it could have been interpreted by the Bracknell players as celebrating the injury to their captain and her ultimate humiliation in sustaining an injury from her own tackle;

C'mon gents if you are going to be forensic about it get you facts correct.

Defendant winded herself seems also to counter the perspective that she was larger and stronger and would always come out on top.

I was quite surprised to see 1 top level ex referee saying they had never seen a tackle like that and the other saying they had only seen it 2!

I feel there is yet again a very clear case of outcome bias. Scrum halves likely get tackled like that many times but as we do not see the legal challenge and the broader awareness we do not really consider the problem significant.

 

[crossref]

If there is, I'm not sure I really want to watch it given the life-altering outcome (I'm a little squeamish about watching stuff like that).

There is, the judgement says that the whole match was videoed .. and that the judge watched it all.

I am pretty sure the photos we have seen will be stills from the video

 

[BikingBud]

From that judgement is seems like there were a lot of people who could have done better that day, esp coaches and ref who could have got her off the field

I am sure we have all played with or against or refereed players described as enforcers, are we seeing a reduction in those nowadays, yes certainly in show rugby where the presence of many cameras ensures citing are appropriate but in other games, I do wonder.

 

[crossref]

!

I feel there is yet again a very clear case of outcome bias. Scrum halves likely get tackled like that many times but as we do not see the legal challenge and the broader awareness we do not really consider the problem significant.

I don't think they do get tackled like that , which is why the two refs haven't seen it, and why she won her case (which everyone agrees is very hard to do)

 

[crossref]

Nope a game in May 17 with the game in question in Oct 17!

I stand corrected

 

[BikingBud]

There is, the judgement says that the whole match was videoed .. and that the judge watched it all.

I am pretty sure the photos we have seen will be stills from the video

The 3 stills are time stamped and last less than a second, 1:07:39:11 to 1:07:40:00 during this the position changes from little contact, only touching the shoulders to "tackle" complete. In the first shot it appears the Defendant is lifting the ball but cannot tell on the still.

If you ask 100 open side flankers: "given that situation what would you do?"

What answer do you think you would get?

If any of them didn't say smash the scrum half, I would offer that they were not open side flankers and you could equally apply that to all forwards.

What about this one?

 

[crossref]

The situation of the ball possibly being out because a forward wasn't bound is the same as the Esterhuizen / Care incident recently
One can imagine what might have happened if Esterhuizen had ignored the ball and instead belly flopped on Care . Probably something similar :-(

 

[BikingBud]

The situation of the ball possibly being out because a forward wasn't bound is the same as the Esterhuizen / Care incident recently
One can imagine what might have happened if Esterhuizen had ignored the ball and instead belly flopped on Care . Probably something similar :-(

Mate do you mean this one?

Harlequins coach Flannery isn't totally happy with cunning Etzebeth try​

I assume you mean Etzebeth! Not Esterhuizen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/André_Esterhuizen

But was the ball out or not?

You are surmising on the outcome.

 

[belladonna]

Did you have some knowledge of the case before it went to court @belladonna ?

No, only what was reported in the papers when the trial was initially underway.

 

[SimonSmith]

Defendant found to be negligent, very little comment or opinion given around the match officials actions, two ex officials called as expert witnesses - Tony Spreadbury being one, who seemed to backtrack considerably from his (one assumes) paid stance.

Long read https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Watts-v-King-judgment.pdf

Backtrack is harsh. His cross examination was, apparently, clinical and forced his hand.

 

[SimonSmith]

NK had earlier broken another players arm , and also smacked another round back of the head

In a different match between the two sides.

 

[Stu10]

I've never seen a tackle quite like that! From those 2 photos it appears the tackler had dropped her weight onto the ball carrier's head/neck/upper back while she was bent over picking up the ball, and managed to then get hands/arms around the ball carrier's thighs, literally folding her in half.

 

[crossref]

In a different match between the two sides.

yes, I read that too quickly last night. The two games were
8 May 2017 - Friendly, must have been pretty much last game of season - people aren't usually playing 15s in May
8 Oct 2017 - the first league match of the new seson. Likely both teams had played some pre-league friendlies in September to prepare.

The fact that it was two different games, five months apart, in fact makes it seem worse? as it seems to show a pattern of behaviour?

 

[crossref]

this bit is nicely written by the judge

20. A further aspect of the expert evidence, again principally arising from Mr Morrison's evidence, was that it was necessary always to bear in mind that the referee was not a Defendant and the court was not concerned with whether the game was refereed well or not. It was therefore not pertinent to know whether either of the experts would have refereed the match differently.

ouch.

 

[Stu10]

After digging a bit more around duty of care by the referee, Smoldon v Whitworth and Vowles v Evans both involved injury following collapsed scrums, and in both cases the referee was found liable for not fulfilling his duty of care with regard to managing the scrums.

Smoldon v Whitworth & Anor [1996] EWCA Civ 1225 (17 December 1996)

An overview of key case law relating to negligent liability for sports injuries (Part 2) - LawInSport

To succeed in an action of negligence, the victim must be able to prove three things: That he was owed a duty of care That that duty of care was breached The damage suffered was caused by that breach In contact sports, such as football or rugby, all participants owe a duty of care to one...

www.lawinsport.com

https://shura.shu.ac.uk/703/1/fulltext.pdf

 

[crossref]

After digging a bit more around duty of care by the referee, Smoldon v Whitworth and Vowles v Evans both involved injury following collapsed scrums, and in both cases the referee was found liable for not fulfilling his duty of care with regard to managing the scrums.

I remember Vowles.
At present scrums are certainly the #1 area of legal vulnerability for the referee.
- there are very many safety-related laws to follow (starting right before the game in the obligation to brief), so lots of opportunity to mess up
- pretty much uniquely, at the scrum the referee is actually controlling and checking that actions of the players as you go along

I wonder if WR thought much about that when they put referees in charge of scrums

In England we are covered by the RFU who provide PL insurance

RFU Referees & Match Officials Insurance - Howden UK

Referees, touch judges and trainers have automatic Public Liability, Professional Indemnity and Personal Accident cover

www.howdengroup.com

RFU Insurance Centre - Howden (Official RFU Clubs Broker)

www.howdengroup.com

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Now we have the official version it all lookes pretty dammning. Video eivdence was held. Blaming the ref is another matter. What was his angle? What did he see? etc.

Spreadbury comes over very badly indeed. He credibility will take some rebuilding.

Justice done it seems and the "money men" were not the winners.

However how much will the claimant actually get? Does the defendant have it or insurance cover for it.

I can't see the claimant getting £10 mil. Forthe defendant, bankruptcy beckons.

The evidence and verdict alludes to a doubtful culture withint the defendants club. A very sad end.

 

[Harry]

Now we have the official version it all lookes pretty dammning. Video eivdence was held. Blaming the ref is another matter. What was his angle? What did he see? etc.

Spreadbury comes over very badly indeed. He credibility will take some rebuilding.

Justice done it seems and the "money men" were not the winners.

However how much will the claimant actually get? Does the defendant have it or insurance cover for it.

I can't see the claimant getting £10 mil. Forthe defendant, bankruptcy beckons.

The evidenceand verdict alludes to a doubtful culture withint the defendants club. A very sad end.

Indeed I agree with you and I just add Spreadbury to the list of victims in this sad saga. He would have had a very unpleasant time in court. Hopefully no longer than one day.