Idiot parent

[didds]

and more permanent barriers are no more than ranch fencing which again doesn't actually prevent anybody intent on entering the FoP - cos that's not what its intended for of course

didds

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

would you always abandon for a pitch invader/streaker?

Between November and February any streaker at Sheffield Tigers, Stocksbridge or Baildon would get a round of applause from me.

Button mushroom weather.

 

[Daftmedic]

It would be interesting to find out if the offender ended up "falling over" near the club house. It's a judgment call for the referee on the day. We have the benefit of hindsight and not being fatigued.
Do we know what the offender got yet?

 

[OB..]

You take the stance that there is no reason to believe that they are in further danger.

No I don't.

My stance is that your first duty is to try and calm down the situation in front of you before you have to decide on subsequent action. That will give you some information about the likelihood of further problems. If the idiot is quickly removed by home officials with approval from the rest of the crowd, I think you have good evidence that there will be no recurrence. If a major brawl develops then indeed abandonment becomes a front runner.

For the record I have seen a game abandoned by the referee following a brawl started by a spectator, and thoroughly approved of his action. So did the RFU Disciplinary Panel.

 

[SimonSmith]

No I don't.

My stance is that your first duty is to try and calm down the situation in front of you before you have to decide on subsequent action. That will give you some information about the likelihood of further problems. If the idiot is quickly removed by home officials with approval from the rest of the crowd, I think you have good evidence that there will be no recurrence. If a major brawl develops then indeed abandonment becomes a front runner.

For the record I have seen a game abandoned by the referee following a brawl started by a spectator, and thoroughly approved of his action. So did the RFU Disciplinary Panel.

I'm not trying to pick a fight OB, and I rarely disagree with you. But on this?

I disagree, especially with the bolded statement, much as RobLev lays out above. The amount of confidence that you can have in the club is very limited due to their completely wrong assessment of the situation prior to the incident.

I'm not saying I would rush to abandonment - but it would be the ultimate conclusion of my thought process.

 

[OB..]

I'm not saying I would rush to abandonment - but it would be the ultimate conclusion of my thought process.

"Would" implies there is no room for any other action. If you had written "could", it would imply making an assessment on whatever information is available - which is my view.

 

[davidgh]

Result - a three month ban and perpetual embarassment

Unfortunately the offended kid has been led to think he should sue. Gladly in 'this side of the pond' he might get 1.50p for his sore shin but would probably have to pick up his own costs.

 

[dave_clark]

should have been a 3 year ban.

 

[OB..]

Result - a three month ban [...]

May, June, and July - the rugby off-season?

 

[rugbyslave]

May, June, and July - the rugby off-season?

Is that it , is this now settled, or with the publicity the IRB might have the final say.

 

[RobLev]

Result - a three month ban and perpetual embarassment

Unfortunately the offended kid has been led to think he should sue.

You mean the injured child, I believe. In principle, I really cannot see your objection here. If you were running down the street and someone deliberately stuck their foot out to trip you, why wouldn't you sue for any injury or damage caused? Or seek compensation when the criminal case came to trial?

Gladly in 'this side of the pond' he might get 1.50p for his sore shin but would probably have to pick up his own costs.

Although if he suffered no more than bruising to the shin, then as you say damages would be pretty small.

 

[didds]

you'd have to show tghere was actual injury/damage caused though presumably. And how that has had a detrimental effect on your life(style).

Son in both cases (rugby and high street) whilst you could sue if "all" you received was a bruised shin and bloodied knee then I doubt that you'd receive any compensation worth while. The best you could hope for is the defendant coughing an amount to shut you up and keep their name out of court... a sort of legal blackmail I suppose.

in summary, you can only sue for your losses. What loses are there for bruises and grazes?

maybe it gave you whiplash of course...

didds

 

[davidgh]

No - not the off season - Telegraph says until end of year - seems sensible to me

 

[davidgh]

You mean the injured child, I believe. In principle, I really cannot see your objection here. If you were running down the street and someone deliberately stuck their foot out to trip you, why wouldn't you sue for any injury or damage caused? Or seek compensation when the criminal case came to trial?

Although if he suffered no more than bruising to the shin, then as you say damages would be pretty small.

Simple - It just isn't rugby - it isn't British either - I don't like ambulance chasing

 

[RobLev]

Simple - It just isn't rugby

So if your neck is broken by a deliberate collapse of a scrum, just suck it up?

- it isn't British either -

To the contrary; the Americans go overboard, of course, but the foundations of, for example, negligence law lie in the English common law.

I don't like ambulance chasing

There we entirely agree; with the proviso that I have absolutely no idea what relevance that has to the issue.

In practice, on the little we know so far, he'd be ill-advised to sue because it just isn't worth it; but if significant injury had been caused by a deliberate assault, I really don't see why he shouldn't be adequately compensated for it.

 

[andyscott]

Why is there talk of civil action?

Why is this not a criminal offence?

 

[Toby Warren]

Why is there talk of civil action?

Why is this not a criminal offence?

Why not have both?

What do you think that outcome will be of criminal action?

Caution?
Trip to the magistrates and a £25 fine?

 

[RobLev]

Why is there talk of civil action?

Why is this not a criminal offence?

It looks like it was; so the lad could seek compensation at any criminal trial. Whether the police will take any action, though, depends on whether anyone called them, which certainly doesn't jump out of the news stories we've seen. They certainly wouldn't be impressed with having to put a case together several days later because no-one thought to get them there while all the witnesses and the suspect were together at the scene.

The player is quoted in the papers as having suggested he might sue.

 

[andyscott]

Why not have both?

What do you think that outcome will be of criminal action?

Caution?
Trip to the magistrates and a £25 fine?

A conviction is all that matters.

 

[Chogan]

Obviously he was watching Monty Python's "the meaning of life"...

John Cleese is clearly the root of all evil