court case

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Well I asked you in reponse to your use of the word. I quote: "I think the point here is the deliberate intent to injure, allegedly saying for example she was going to "break her"." So your "guess" as to the meaning is pertinant.

Of course, once again, it is about context:

When I play a chess match I set out to "break" my opponant. In fact I set out the "kill" his king - it is what "checkmate" means!

When I played rugby as a prop I set out to "break" my opposing prop.

Am I setting out to maim them. Clearly not. I am pointing out words have differing meanings depending on context. Hopefully the courts will rise above tabloid crap.
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
At what point have I or anyone here suggested otherwise?
i dunno - I get the sense that you have little sympathy with DC's case ? (or am I wrong?)
I think the case will revolve around the extent that NK was reckless and how much duty of care she owed on a rugby pitch.
'not to maim' would be a low bar .. and she did maim.
 

Harry

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Oct 26, 2019
Messages
72
Post Likes
53
Another regular quote from our barrister is" We don't have a system of justice, we have a system of law."
This case is in effect a person in a wheelchair against an insurance company.

The cynic in me expects one result, but I hope to be proven wrong.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
Another regular quote from our barrister is" We don't have a system of justice, we have a system of law."
This case is in effect a person in a wheelchair against an insurance company.
yes, it must be --- but I struggle to guess : whose insurance company ?
I imagine not the regular RFU Insurance, that does not depend on fault / circumstances and will have paid out already (just £300k according to the table on-line).

Did NK have her own PL insurance perhaps?

Coincidentally DAG wrote a relevant blog post this week
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
i dunno - I get the sense that you have little sympathy with DC's case ? (or am I wrong?)
I think the case will revolve around the extent that NK was reckless and how much duty of care she owed on a rugby pitch.
'not to maim' would be a low bar .. and she did maim.
As usual yes your are not good at getting context. I have little time for the rags you choose to quote. THe case could revolve around the existance of any video evidence. Otherwise the referee's opinion will likely have a strong baring. He felt the challenge was ok and, one can resonalbly assume the injury to be a "rugby incident".

However, none of that is based on anything other than guesswork. Which is problably no worse a guess than the journos you quote.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Another regular quote from our barrister is" We don't have a system of justice, we have a system of law."
This case is in effect a person in a wheelchair against an insurance company.

The cynic in me expects one result, but I hope to be proven wrong.
I'd hope the correct result is the one arrived at. Whatever that may be.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
As usual yes your are not good at getting context. I have little time for the rags you choose to quote. THe case could revolve around the existance of any video evidence. Otherwise the referee's opinion will likely have a strong baring. He felt the challenge was ok and, one can resonalbly assume the injury to be a "rugby incident".

However, none of that is based on anything other than guesswork. Which is problably no worse a guess than the journos you quote.
Video evidence would obviously be important, none of the various reports mention any, so seems likely there isn't

Witness accounts of what actually happened will be important, but I don't think the referees witness account will be any more significant than anyone else's per se, it will be more to do with how clear a view each witness got. Hopefully the ref got a good view, but likely won't be the only one

Legally it seems to turn on two things

1 for DC .. was it a risk that was reasonably foreseeable, which she therefore she could be said to have consented to

2 for NK .. was it unduly reckless, and therefore outside the duty of care she owed to other players

I am not sure the extent that the referee's opinions and 1 and 2 would matter .. but that is something I am interested to find out.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
If this quote in the opening article is true: 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..." The suggestion is fairly clear that the was something to review (video?????)

The referee would surely be put forward as something of an "expert" whereas most in the crowd would be seen as objectively biassed (supporters of one or other team). So I'd imgine his opinion would carry a little more weight than most.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
The referee would surely be put forward as something of an "expert" where s most in the crowd would be seen as objectively bisssed (supporters of one or other team).
Well, I hope not. he referee might be an expert in rugby law (or might not!) but so far as (1) and (2) are concerned I don't think referees opinions are any different from players and coaches . It will all be to do with how much experience they have

If the key question is - was this exceptional on a rugby field or was it ordinary? Well the ref might be 19 and in their first season. The opinion of someone who is in their 20th season might be more valuable

The ref might well be the person on the field who had the clearest view of what actually happened. I think that is what he/she will be most likely useful for . (Of course they also might not have seen it if distracted)/
 

Harry

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Oct 26, 2019
Messages
72
Post Likes
53
I'd hope the correct result is the one arrived at. Whatever that may be.
An insurance company may have an agenda outside of this particular case.
It may be that they are liable for some of the brain injury cases in Rugby.
In that case they may throw millions at this case with the most expensive lawyers they can buy.

They may want to keep future judgements against them to those where "intent" can be proven so that they keep the overall bill down.
Other insurance companies may contribute to this case just to protect themselves from future claims.

If "justice" and getting the right decision was all that mattered why would people bother with very expensive lawyers ?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
An insurance company may have an agenda outside of this particular case.
It may be that they are liable for some of the brain injury cases in Rugby.
In that case they may throw millions at this case with the most expensive lawyers they can buy.

They may want to keep future judgements against them to those where "intent" can be proven so that they keep the overall bill down.
Other insurance companies may contribute to this case just to protect themselves from future claims.

If "justice" and getting the right decision was all that mattered why would people bother with very expensive lawyers ?
DC has a Rober Weir KC
NK has Geoffrey Brown

Geoffrey Brown is not a KC, so quite possibly is less expensive.

As reported in the various press - DC is not trying to prove intent to injure, she is trying to show NK was reckless, and didn't exercise her duty of care.

People employ expensive lawyers to try and get the correct result.

Justice would probably be a system where the state provided no-fault compensation for very serious injury like this (and in turn the state would sue to recover the money, if appropriate.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
An insurance company may have an agenda outside of this particular case.
It may be that they are liable for some of the brain injury cases in Rugby.
In that case they may throw millions at this case with the most expensive lawyers they can buy.

They may want to keep future judgements against them to those where "intent" can be proven so that they keep the overall bill down.
Other insurance companies may contribute to this case just to protect themselves from future claims.

If "justice" and getting the right decision was all that mattered why would people bother with very expensive lawyers ?
And that contradicts my post? How?

Your comment is interesting: "The cynic in me expects one result, but I hope to be proven wrong." So you want a particular verdict without full knowledge of the facts but you dont expect that to be delivered.

I on the other hand don't have a preference but I hope the verdict arrived at is the correct one. Sure the correct verdict should be the one we all want.
 
Last edited:

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Well, I hope not. he referee might be an expert in rugby law (or might not!) but so far as (1) and (2) are concerned I don't think referees opinions are any different from players and coaches . It will all be to do with how much experience they have

If the key question is - was this exceptional on a rugby field or was it ordinary? Well the ref might be 19 and in their first season. The opinion of someone who is in their 20th season might be more valuable

The ref might well be the person on the field who had the clearest view of what actually happened. I think that is what he/she will be most likely useful for . (Of course they also might not have seen it if distracted)/
Well the referee, unlike the players and coaches is a disinterested party. That alone makes him position less open to bias. The review (problably involving a video) by the RFU folk seems to support his view (assming the journos arbeing truthful)
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
yes.

I note that neither the referee nor the officials are quoted directly though which is odd - one would imagine that if they weren't called they would have submitted a statement that could be quoted from

Note for referees in England : I believe it is now mandatory that a referee fills in a serious incident report for any injury involving an ambulance being called - so be sure to do that if something happens--- as at some point you are going to be asked for it. Other regions might have similar.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
Well the referee, unlike the players and coaches is a disinterested party. That alone makes him position less open to bias. The review (problably involving a video) by the RFU folk seems to support his view (assming the journos arbeing truthful)
the ref isn't really disinterested though. Having not sanctioned the tackle he's pretty much in a box and has to say that in his opinion and from where he was standing , the tackle was OK -- otherwise he is admitting something that, given the circs, will feel like a big mistake.
 

Harry

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Oct 26, 2019
Messages
72
Post Likes
53
And that contradicts my post? How?

Your comment is interesting: "The cynic in me expects one result, but I hope to be proven wrong." So you want a particular verdict without full knowledge of the facts but you dont expect that to be delivered.

I on the other hand don't have a preference but I hope the verdict arrived at is the correct one. Sure the correct verdict should be the one we all want.
Sorry, there was no intention to contradict you. My hope is for a disabled lady to get a decent pay out from an insurance company. But my expectation is that the insurance company will win.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Sorry, there was no intention to contradict you. My hope is for a disabled lady to get a decent pay out from an insurance company. But my expectation is that the insurance company will win.
Why should an insurance company pay out (with the subsequent stigma attached to the tackler) if there was nothing wrong? Surely the injured party should be responsible for covering herself.

OF COURSE

IF there is blame, without doubt make the guilty pay.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
the ref isn't really disinterested though. Having not sanctioned the tackle he's pretty much in a box and has to say that in his opinion and from where he was standing , the tackle was OK -- otherwise he is admitting something that, given the circs, will feel like a big mistake.
He was disinterested when viewing the challenge and made a judgement as to the legality of the challenge accordingly. The coaches, players and spectators see things from their teams point of view. there view is therfore not disinterested.Ttheir alegience will, in all likelyhood lead to (at best) unconsious bias.
The referee, by "accepting the "tackle" has already made the judgment that from what he saw the challenge was fine
The Review by the RFU has concured with his view.
 
Top