court case

TLDR
 
i read it. But I couldn't actually work out
- whether you think JL should have been PK'd or carded for the tackle
- whether you think the judge reached the right decision in DC v NK
not sure if that is my fault for not understanding, or whether you haven't actually said
 
crossref said:
No lessons at all to be drawn from DC v NK then? Completely different, no comparison at all. 😕

So what lessons can we learn from the case? What's the takeaway for community refs? Anything at all we can apply in our own games?

Seems like two referees came out of that case very poorly (the ref in charge, and Tony S), perhaps there is something for us?

Any thoughts on Tony Spreadbury's testimony perhaps ?

What went wrong for TS was that he focused on rugby technicalities and forgot about recklessness and duty of care
Click to expand...

I would say completely different, in that in the case the defendant (knowingly or unknowingly) targeted the spine. She grabbed the plaintiff over the shoulders and under the thighs, folding her in half, and then drove her entire weight into it. That's effectively a spear tackle with the tackler doing a swan dive to boot! A tackle is being held and brought to the ground, but that doesn't include piledrivers, suplexes or any other wrestling manoeuvres.

I wonder if TS had even seen the video of the incident before the case? It seems like his testimony was based on the principles and paperwork of rugby, and that he was surprised at the details of the foul play in question.

I honestly think the nature of the technique was key in this... if only because as a normal, high-powered dominant tackle, it would have broken a collarbone or rib, maybe a cheekbone or nose if there were an accidental head clash... but not the back.
 
crossref said:
Seems like two referees came out of that case very poorly (the ref in charge, and Tony S), perhaps there is something for us?
Click to expand...
Well Spreadbury comes out of this poorly. There is no doublt about that. His credibility will take a lot of re-building.

The ref in the game? Well What did he actually see? His view might have made his call totally logical. We call make judgements on what we see from our angle. That there is something we did not see does not mean our judgment was lacking.

The referee mae his call in a split second., not after watching the video for 99 times. Would you or I or indeed any refereehave made a different call with his view? I can't answer for me Why beause I do not have access to the view. To say he comes out looking bad is journalistic nonsense.
 
The referee is not directly criticised in the judgement but para 20 has a lot of lines we can read between

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
Click to expand...
I also note that the injuring incident was referred to as Incident 9
 
Rich_NL said:
I would say completely different, in that in the case the defendant (knowingly or unknowingly) targeted the spine. She grabbed the plaintiff over the shoulders and under the thighs, folding her in half, and then drove her entire weight into it. That's effectively a spear tackle with the tackler doing a swan dive to boot! A tackle is being held and brought to the ground, but that doesn't include piledrivers, suplexes or any other wrestling manoeuvres.

I wonder if TS had even seen the video of the incident before the case? It seems like his testimony was based on the principles and paperwork of rugby, and that he was surprised at the details of the foul play in question.

I honestly think the nature of the technique was key in this... if only because as a normal, high-powered dominant tackle, it would have broken a collarbone or rib, maybe a cheekbone or nose if there were an accidental head clash... but not the back.
Click to expand...
And we have not seen the video, I asked back in #77 but we have only the stills <1 second apart and we have the narrative of the judgement.

Yet people continue to assume, surmise, interpolate, extrapolate, cast aspersions, read between the lines and guess. None of which actually makes any difference.

There are facts, and there is evidence then a whole load of 20-20 hindsight, hearsay and opinion. I try to stay in the realm of the first 2 but we have some fantasists who enjoy exploring the margins of reality.

I did wrote a long piece, some will read, some will not bother.
Phil E said:
TLDR
Click to expand...
Did you read the judgment Phil? Perhaps more than a few words is difficult, are you grubber ;)
 
crossref said:
The referee is not directly criticised in the judgement but para 20 has a lot of lines we can read between


I also note that the injuring incident was referred to as Incident 9
Click to expand...
Because I'm....me, I get emails from the Judiciary, both civil and criminal, and read them. Ordinary judgments, and appeal judgments.

I'm not sure I incline to your thinking on this. The Judge is taking particular care to be clear about what was in scope and what was not in scope for the case, and for the judgment.

For every "refereed well" there has to be a counterpoint of "or not", else there is ambiguity. The judgment in the case is a big one, monetarily, and there is a reasonable inference that there could be an appeal. That being so, I think the Judge is being particularly careful and explicit in order to minimize any potential grounds of appeal. I don't think it's a coded opinion on the referee - m'learned friend would be steering well away from that.
 
Ed Morrison .. and to a lesser extent TS .. evidently testified that he would have refereed the game differently .
The judge evidently reminded them that the referee wasn't on trial here .

All that was mentioned in the judgement
Do you think the ref read that and thought " I came out of that well"
 
Last edited:
crossref said:
Ed Morrison .. and to a lesser extent TS .. evidently testified that he would have refereed the game differently .
The judge evidently reminded them that the referee wasn't on trial here .

All that was mentioned in the judgement
Do you think the ref read that and thought " I came out of that well"
Click to expand...
You are making things up again.
 
BikingBud said:
You are making things up again.
Click to expand...
? its' paragraph 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
Click to expand...
 
crossref said:
? its' paragraph 20
Click to expand...
"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."​

If you need that paragraph breaking down I can now fully understand why you get issues. There is no comment whether the game was refereed well or otherwise, in fact it clearly sates that it was not relevant.

Hence there is nothing evidential in that judgment about the referee on the day.

So any inferences you may wish to make is purely your own; reading between the lines, supposition, conjecture and imagination.

Ergo, you are making it up. 🤦‍♂️
 
crossref said:
don't forget that intent to injure wasn't alleged - so there was no evidence presented to that effect.

what was alleged, and evidence presented to support, was : recklessness.

(I am sure this would be because, as well as being very hard to prove, intent was not really relevant : DC didn't need to show intent, showing recklessness was sufficient to win her case.)
Click to expand...
So there was intent to exact revenge but no intent to injure; instead the injury was the result of recklessness.

I wonder how that will play out in terms of material outcome... was the recklessness conscious or subconscious, ie, was it deliberate? Does that matter?
 
Rich_NL said:
Executing a tackle well within the laws of the game, in a way that you might well be trained to tackle, in fact. That alone makes the bar for recklessness extremely high, and negligence all but impossible. There are no extenuating circumstances that make that particular tackle reckless from one he might have carried out 5 minutes later or 10m upfield.

If he'd picked the boy up and carried out a wrestling piledriver, fair enough. But legal grounds don't cover "enough to make you wince".

If there were a court case there it would be against SARU or world rugby for allowing a match up between such disparate youth players. I suspect that without a very serious injury, that would get nowhere.
Click to expand...

I don't know the age-grade rules/variations in SA, but that tackle was above the arm-pits and would have got a card in any of the age-grade games that I referee for height and very high force. The outcome also doesn't look good, with ball carrier's feet in the air and head-first into the ground.

1677770024477.png
1677770092335.png
 
crossref said:
Ed Morrison .. and to a lesser extent TS .. evidently testified that he would have refereed the game differently .
The judge evidently reminded them that the referee wasn't on trial here .

All that was mentioned in the judgement
Do you think the ref read that and thought " I came out of that well"
Click to expand...
Refereed differently from a different vantage point. The Union has already "cleared" him. TS, and his testimony, has very little credibility. I think you are reading stuf out of context (again).
 
You and your "context" it's like a magic word for you, :) a cudgel suitable for any occasion

But I am intrigued
Marc Wakeham said:
The Union has already "cleared" him
Click to expand...

That's new information! And surprising. Tell us more !
Was there an allegation? By whom ? What of? And some sort of hearing ? And how do do you know about it ?
 
Last edited:
crossref said:
You and your "context" it's like a magic word for you, :) a cudgel suitable for any occasion

But I am intrigued


That's new information! And surprising. Tell us more !
Was there an allegation? By whom ? What of? And some sort of hearing ? And how do do you know about it ?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should read the article you posted in your opening post: "Her barrister Geoffrey Brown pointed out: 'The tackle was a legitimate one in the eyes of the match official and both RFU officials charged with reviewing such matters." Whilst it is from the Daily Heil. As you felt it worthy of sharing I assumed you'd actually bothered to read it and that you understood it's content.

Clearly not.

Context is a vital concept when trying to understand thngs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top