court case

[crossref]

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.

She is actually covered by the RfU PL cover (I worked it out eventually)

RFU Rugby Players Insurance | Howden UK

The RFU provides individual players with public liability and personal accident insurance

www.howdengroup.com

I wonder if she could now face criminal charges though

 

[didds]

wow. i just read the area of the report about Spreadbury.

Crushed in court

 

[crossref]

After reading this case, on duty of care, people might like to revisit this old one

Thread 'South African schoolboy rugby viral tackle video' https://forum.rugbyrefs.com/index.p...can-schoolboy-rugby-viral-tackle-video.21410/

 

[Marc Wakeham]

She is actually covered by the RfU PL cover (I worked it out eventually)

RFU Rugby Players Insurance | Howden UK

The RFU provides individual players with public liability and personal accident insurance

www.howdengroup.com

I wonder if she could now face criminal charges though

I think the verdict makes that unlikely.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

She is actually covered by the RfU PL cover (I worked it out eventually)

RFU Rugby Players Insurance | Howden UK

The RFU provides individual players with public liability and personal accident insurance

www.howdengroup.com

I wonder if she could now face criminal charges though

The payout looks safe then. I wonder if the Insurance will push for an appeal?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

After reading this case, on duty of care, people might like to revisit this old one

Thread 'South African schoolboy rugby viral tackle video' https://forum.rugbyrefs.com/index.p...can-schoolboy-rugby-viral-tackle-video.21410/

Whole differennt ball game or is it? The actual facts that came out in this case are not ones we can atribute to a different case.

 

[crossref]

Whole differennt ball game or is it? The actual facts that came out in this case are not ones we can atribute to a different case.

I think the message is that (regardless of whether the tackle was 'legal' or not,) players owe eachother a duty of care.

I think that some of the comments on that other incident reminded me of Tony Spreadbury's inititial testimony, which fell apart under cross examination

 

[Marc Wakeham]

What do you know about the other incident? Compared to what we now actually know from the verdict in the recent case?

 

[SimonSmith]

After reading this case, on duty of care, people might like to revisit this old one

Thread 'South African schoolboy rugby viral tackle video' https://forum.rugbyrefs.com/index.p...can-schoolboy-rugby-viral-tackle-video.21410/

I'm not sure. I don't think the Judge broke any new ground with regards to duty of care.

Type of match and the obligations that places on the players and referee? Yes.

The underlying nature of duty of care, not so much. Critical to the case, turning I suspect on Morrison and Spreadbury's dissection, is that the incident was deemed to be outside the laws.

And as always, cases turn on the specifics of the case.

 

[crossref]

I'm not sure. I don't think the Judge broke any new ground with regards to duty of care.

Type of match and the obligations that places on the players and referee? Yes.

The underlying nature of duty of care, not so much. Critical to the case, turning I suspect on Morrison and Spreadbury's dissection, is that the incident was deemed to be outside the laws.

And as always, cases turn on the specifics of the case.

Have a look at (x) and (xi) in the judgement, those are the key bits of comparison I think ..did they also apply in the u14 incident?
But yes of course every case is different, and in particular didn't lead to a life changing injury

 

[BikingBud]

I think the message is that (regardless of whether the tackle was 'legal' or not,) players owe eachother a duty of care.

I think that some of the comments on that other incident reminded me of Tony Spreadbury's inititial testimony, which fell apart under cross examination

Always interesting to see what you avoid answering and what detail you get bogged down in, often without considering how this may affect the game.

Did you have any thoughts or perhaps you are avoiding providing a perspective of:

• Generally, players deliberately looking to smash their opponents, especially scrum halves.
• Specifically, the Lewsey tackle, both post #88,
• The Callum Clark incident

Have a look at (x) and (xi) in the judgement, those are the key bits of comparison I think ..did they also apply in the u14 incident?
But yes of course every case is different, and in particular didn't lead to a life changing injury

I trust you are referring to 58 (x) and (xi)

• (x) I do not find that the Defendant intended to injure the Claimant, indeed that is not alleged against her: I do find, though, that the “tackle” was executed with reckless disregard for the Claimant’s safety in a manner which was liable to cause injury and that the Defendant was so angry by this time that she closed her eyes to the risk to which she was subjecting the Claimant, a risk of injury which was clear and obvious;
• (xi) In particular, there was no error of judgment in the tackle: I find that the Defendant did exactly what she set out to do, and whether or not the Claimant had possession of the ball was irrelevant so far as she was concerned: at that moment she was not attempting to play within the Laws of the game, but to exact retribution on the Claimant;

I still cannot see how if there was "reckless disregard" for safety but there was "no error of judgment in the tackle" and " that the Defendant did exactly what she set out to do" and "to exact retribution on the Claimant" that it can be decided that there was no intent to injure. Just doesn't stack up to me.

Nevertheless, going by your rationale all tackles that result in injury show "an absence of duty of care" and even if legal under the laws of the game are not considered legal acts in the court of law.

I would offer that applying that principle marks the end of the game as we know it!

 

[crossref]

Always interesting to see what you avoid answering and what detail you get bogged down in, often without considering how this may affect the game.

Did you have any thoughts or perhaps you are avoiding providing a perspective of:

• Generally, players deliberately looking to smash their opponents, especially scrum halves.
• Specifically, the Lewsey tackle, both post #88,
• The Callum Clark incident

I trust you are referring to 58 (x) and (xi)

• (x) I do not find that the Defendant intended to injure the Claimant, indeed that is not alleged against her: I do find, though, that the “tackle” was executed with reckless disregard for the Claimant’s safety in a manner which was liable to cause injury and that the Defendant was so angry by this time that she closed her eyes to the risk to which she was subjecting the Claimant, a risk of injury which was clear and obvious;
• (xi) In particular, there was no error of judgment in the tackle: I find that the Defendant did exactly what she set out to do, and whether or not the Claimant had possession of the ball was irrelevant so far as she was concerned: at that moment she was not attempting to play within the Laws of the game, but to exact retribution on the Claimant;

I still cannot see how if there was "reckless disregard" for safety but there was "no error of judgment in the tackle" and " that the Defendant did exactly what she set out to do" and "to exact retribution on the Claimant" that it can be decided that there was no intent to injure. Just doesn't stack up to me.

Nevertheless, going by your rationale all tackles that result in injury show "an absence of duty of care" and even if legal under the laws of the game are not considered legal acts in the court of law.

I would offer that applying that principle marks the end of the game as we know it!

I think you should re read the judgement more carefully and all will be clearer

 

[BikingBud]

I think you should re read the judgement more carefully and all will be clearer

See post #87

Reading the judgment again will not clarify what has been written in unclear terms. Perhaps you could explain it for me or point me somewhere else in the transcript where it is clear?

Perhaps 58(vii) helps:

"I have no doubt that the Defendant did, as the Claimant said, utter the words: “That fucking number 7, I’m going to break her.” Thereafter, she was looking for an opportunity to get her revenge on the Claimant: the red mist had metaphorically descended over the Defendant’s eyes;"​

So the judge decided that she did say that and still considers there was no intent? If he had determined that she did not say that then the judged lack of intent may be clearer.

That aside, again you evade the other aspects and questions that I raised.

 

[crossref]

For me it reads pretty clearly

There was no specific intent to break her spine or otherwise cause life changing injury

But there was intent to hurt her and recklessness as to what might happen when she did that

(sorry, I don't have specific views on Lewsey or Callum because i haven't researched/ reviewed either incident)

 

[BikingBud]

For me it reads pretty clearly

There was no specific intent to break her spine or otherwise cause life changing injury

But there was intent to hurt her and recklessness as to what might happen when she did that

(sorry, I don't have specific views on Lewsey or Callum because i haven't researched/ reviewed either incident)

So you are contradicting the judge then:

58 (x) I do not find that the Defendant intended to injure the Claimant indeed that is not alleged against her:​

For Lewsey I gave you the link it is there to see! And for the generic scenario:

• Generally, players deliberately looking to smash their opponents, especially scrum halves.

This doesn't need any research you have a thought or you don't.

I give up

 

[crossref]

I am not contradicting the judge ! That quote is exactly what I said !
Very well, since you really want my expert opinion on Lewsey, I will have a look

I don't understand your other question? But it probably goes without saying that if 'smash' means injure, then I am against deliberate attempts to injure. Isn't everyone?

 

[crossref]

What about this one?

The person who put together that clip was obviously connecting the two incidents, right ?

The story is the first Rogers punches Lewsey, then Lewsey smashes Rogers, with the intention to hurt him.

I am against that behaviour.

I bet the ref wished he had YC both of them in the first instance , and then maybe the second tackle wouldn't have happened

 

[Marc Wakeham]

That aside, again you evade the other aspects and questions that I raised.

You'll get used to it eventually

 

[crossref]

You'll get used to it eventually

He he, My opinion is much sought after but sometimes I might miss a question or the question seems obscure. But I have tried hard to answer bud above

Buds main question seems to be that he doesn't understand the judgement, and would like me to explain it to him

 

[SimonSmith]

The person who put together that clip was obviously connecting the two incidents, right ?

The story is the first Rogers punches Lewsey, then Lewsey smashes Rogers, with the intention to hurt him.

I am against that behaviour.

I bet the ref wished he had YC both of them in the first instance , and then maybe the second tackle wouldn't have happened

Are you saying you would have penalized Lewsey?

That was perfectly legal, and nor, bearing in my mind the Learned Judge's statements about the nature of the game being played, was it cointrary to the spirit or the nature of the game.