Lawyers

[Iron_Lung]

It makes you wonder when a bottom feeding ambulance chaser can start talking along these lines! What's next? Suing a player for knocking on?

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/r...nst-south-africa/story-e6frf4zl-1226121004412

 

[dave_clark]

if it's not happened in european soccer, or any american sport, it's unlikely to happen in rugby i'd suggest. scary path if it's being considered though.

 

[Simon Thomas]

perhaps John Mullins is on a fishing expedition ?

if it ever came to court, which I would find hard to believe it would, and unlikely if the coach (for example) wanted to continue as a professional in the game of rugby, it would be an interesting case and only make money for the legal representation present.

the case would be based on on the TMO's decision being outside of the current protocols (and Law 6n), but in this case the decision was correct - an interesting legal debate.

as for a referee making a match result affecting critical decision, then all sorts of worms come out the the tin - is he fit for purpose, is he biased (claims of bribes perhaps), etc. Did the appointing body take due care in his selection, etc is another route the legal cpompensation chaser might explore.

let's stick with the current cultre and ethos of the sport, where the referees decision is accepted, if not always respected. And remember even at the elite levels not all referees are paid professionals (Allain Rolland for example is a financial adviser not a full time paid referee).

 

[Ian_Cook]

Oh please God no!!!!! Not in our sport.

Please note, this is NOT a Kiwi lawyer suggesting this, is an Aussie, being quoted in an Aussie newspaper.

I hereby distance myself from this suggestion. About 1500km east ought to do it.

 

[Toby Warren]

Would be interesting and appalling in equal measure.

Surely provided that the ref acts in good faith any claim falls at the first hurdle.

 

[OB..]

[LAWS]The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match[/LAWS]
That would seem to prevent a result being overturned.

[LAWS]The referee must apply fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.[/LAWS]
Presumably the idea is that someone could sue the referee for breaking the Laws of the Game. Under what legal head? I don't see a breach of contract. The tort of negligence requires harm, but "In English law, the right to claim for purely economic loss is limited to a number of 'special' and clearly defined circumstances, often related to the nature of the duty to the plaintiff as between clients and lawyers, financial advisers, and other professions where money is central to the consultative services." (Wikipedia)

 

[SimonSmith]

It's an interesting thought.

There's a different standard in looking at: were you incompetent in doing the normal job (Wayne Barnes, forward pass) OR did you consciously step outside the bounds of a well defined role/process (TMO/Clancy this weekend)

In the States, I wonder if this would have legs; I'd love to argue it out.

 

[chopper15]

. . . . but wouldn't the court be obliged to base their decision on fact not the procedural requirement of IRB protocol?

If, however, potocol trumps fact, then what if the ref wasn't sure if the ball was satisfactorily grounded by a player standing in touch and posed the question to the TMO, 'Try or No try?'?

If the TMO could confirm the grounding was OK, would protocol allow him to tell the ref that the player was, however, off-side . . . as the incident - as with the foot in touch - didn't take place in the FoP?:hap:

 

[The umpire]

Presumably, since throwing the ball forward is contrary to the Laws of the Game, someone could counter-sue Dagg, for negligence at the very least?

 

[damo]

This is a non-story in my opinion. There is no way a legal case could fly based on a referees decision, even if they went outside protocol or whatever. Must have been a slow news day!

 

[Robert Burns]

I agree Damo, not worth the debate IMHO.

 

[Toby Warren]

Oh come come, we all know it's not going to happen (well not for at least 20+ years!) but it's fun to discuss.

 

[rugbydave]

Unfortunately and not surprisingly there have been plenty of lawsuits directed at sports officials here in the States. So far, the courts have found that officals can be held repsonsible for injuries as a result of negligence on the part of the officials. The good news is that thus far courts have avoided ruling regarding on field decisions. Check out http://www.naso.org/rprt3.htm for more.

 

[OB..]

Unfortunately and not surprisingly there have been plenty of lawsuits directed at sports officials here in the States. So far, the courts have found that officals can be held repsonsible for injuries as a result of negligence on the part of the officials. The good news is that thus far courts have avoided ruling regarding on field decisions. Check out http://www.naso.org/rprt3.htm for more.

It should be stressed that Negligence is a specific tort with specific requirements. It is not just the ordinary use of the word

 

[SimonSmith]

I'd love to hear them argue that the TMO had acted ultra vires

 

[Dixie]

OB is on the money, as usual. The protocol is merely a protocol, whereas the ref being the sole judge of fact and law is one of the fundamental (perhaps the most fundamental) laws of the game. Also, there is an argument that despite the protocol, Clancy was in fact following the law in going upstairs:

[LAWS]A match organiser may appoint an official who uses technological devices. If the referee is
unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving a try being scored or a touch down, that
official may be consulted.[/LAWS]

Was Clancy in in-goal? Yes. Was he trying to make a decision? Yes. Did the decision involve whether or not a try had been lawfully scored? Yes. Thus, the official may be consulted.

 

[chopper15]

Oh come come, we all know it's not going to happen (well not for at least 20+ years!) but it's fun to discuss.

:clap::clap::clap: . . . wish I said that.:sad:

 

[OB..]

:clap::clap::clap: . . . wish I said that.:sad:

"You will, Oscar. You will." (Whistler)

 

[chopper15]

I'd love to hear them argue that the TMO had acted ultra vires

. . . but he did, didn't he? Surely IRB protocol would be no defence in a court of law?

 

[chopper15]

"You will, Oscar. You will." (Whistler)

I like the 2nd version.

PRINCE OF WALES: My congratulations, Wilde. Your latest play is a great success. The whole of London's talking about you.
OSCAR: There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that it not being talked about.
PRINCE: Very very witty... very very witty.
WHISTLER: There's only one thing in the world worse than being witty and that is not being witty.
OSCAR: I wish I had said that.
Whistler: You will, Oscar, you will.

OSCAR: Your majesty, have you met James McNeill Whistler?
PRINCE: Yes, we've played squash together.
OSCAR: There is only one thing worse than playing squash together, and that is playing it by yourself.(Silence) . . . . I wish I hadn't said that.
WHISTLER: You did, Oscar, you did.