Will Tigers go to law?

[Greg Collins]

The hacks of grub street are claiming Tigers have called in the lawyers.

If true, feels like the we've coasted over the crest of the hill and are bound to find the down slope as slippery as a slippery thing. Injunction to halt the competition in the offing perhaps? What think we?

 

[Taff]

"The board of directors have reviewed the footage of the game and believe there is cause for concern," said Leicester

But they would say that, wouldn't they.

If true, it smacks of desperation a bit IMO.

 

[Davet]

Difficut to tell how much of this is the journalist extending his information to make a story. Tigers say they wnat to help establish what happened and why, and appear to suugest that a formal enquiry is the best way to do it. The bit about wanting a replay appears to be a journalistic statement, with no matching statemenmt from Tigers to back it up.

Cockerill did say that they would take it on the chin... which has normally been the Tigers way.

 

[FlipFlop]

As I see it there only real hope is based on the fact the Mr Ref didn't award them a PK, so didn't follow the correct procedure.

But their chance of getting into the later rounds etc, or a replay - almost zero.

But I do agree with them that no-one invovled in teh match should be incharge of the investigation, and that it should be quick, not long and drawn out like the Bloodgate incident.

 

[Greg Collins]

A case of watch this space then?

 

[scrumpox2]

It gives you a warm glow when a club wants to do everything it can to help the organisers and other clubs in the competition like this. Munster found them very willing to lend a hand ...

 

[Phil E]

Same story on the BBC website HERE

This is the most important bit for me:

A Tigers player pointed out the Ospreys' numerical advantage to referee Alan Lewis, who then berated an Ospreys touchline official for not informing the match fourth official that Byrne had returned.

And competition rules suggest Lewis should have awarded Leicester a penalty once the extra-man situation became apparent.

It's not competition rules of course, its the laws of the game. However its not usual for law errors to result in changes to the result or a replay.

Flogging a dead horse smiley anyone?

 

[Davet]

Analagous to bloodgate...

Maybe this was not deliberate, but what would Leinster's reaction have been if Evans had dropped a winning goal?

 

[OB..]

As with England's faux pas, somebody needs to sort out what went wrong, but I do not support the idea of a replay. A fine may be appropriate.

 

[Taff]

... It's not competition rules of course, its the laws of the game. However its not usual for law errors to result in changes to the result or a replay.

How does this work in practice? If someone points out a "numerical advantage" to the ref, I assume he then counts the players after the ball "next becomes dead" and awards the relevant sanction to wherever he is at the time ie scrum, LO, restart etc. :chin:

 

[Davet]

He awards a PK where the game would next restart.

 

[Emmet Murphy]

Is the PK applied when it happens deliberately or does the law not make that distinction - 16 players on the pitch therefore it's a PK. I have had 16 in the pitch in one of my games but it was entirely accidental - player said he was injured and captain organises a replacement but forgets to tell the injured guy he's going off!

 

[The umpire]

The law does not make that distinction.

 

[Davet]

16 on = PK.

If its an accident, 'cos the captain forgot to get a player off the he should learn not to forget.

 

[Donal1988]

Unlikely that the law will help them. Anyway as you say Lewis and the officials got it wrong and should have awarded a penalty kick. Mistakes by a referee have been picked up on as liability issues in the past. However these tend to be safety related. It has been held in UK court that a ref "could not be properly held liable for errors of judgment, oversights or lapses of which any referee might be guilty in the context of a fast moving and vigorous contest. The threshold of liability is a high one. It will not easily be breached".

After a Chelsea v Leicester City football game ended in controversy a claim was brought against match official Mike Reed and the English FA. Fans of the losing team allegedly suffered distress and anxiety as a result of the referee making a bad call . In similar fashion fans of Valencia FC brought an action against referee Pedro Tristante Oliva and the Spanish soccer federation for “professional negligence” and sought damages of one euro for each of the fans. Neither of these have succeeded.

Recently there were calls by a member of the Irish Senate to sue the referee and FIFA after Theirry Henrys handball, these later amounted to nothing as the case had no legs. Same in USA, Georgia v Waddell a referee made a mistake in a game of American football. The team who lost took it to court and won an order to have the game replayed from the point where the incident took place. On appeal this was quickly reversed with the court holding that that courts of equity do not have authority to review decisions of football referees because they are not justiciable controversies.

It seems that unless Tigers could prove the referee was guilty of tampering, bribery or fraud they have no case. It is generally accepted that when you participate in a sport you accept the risks that run with it and this kind of thing has always been a part of organised sport.

However the ERC may decide to do something about it possibly as competition organisers but thats another matter.

 

[Dixie]

It has been held in UK court that a ref "could not be properly held liable for errors of judgment, oversights or lapses of which any referee might be guilty in the context of a fast moving and vigorous contest. The threshold of liability is a high one. It will not easily be breached".

After a Chelsea v Leicester City football game ended in controversy a claim was brought against match official Mike Reed and the English FA. [blah blah]...fans of Valencia FC brought an action against referee Pedro Tristante Oliva and the Spanish soccer federation for “professional negligence”

I see the thesis is progressing nicely! Check the reports of the Leicester legal advice; this firm could give you your first job.

 

[Donal1988]

The thesis is due tomorrow actually so lets just say its on the mind at the minute.

 

[SimonSmith]

What if the tort is alleged against Ospreys?

 

[Donal1988]

Couldnt say Simon. I would think that the damage suffered was too remote to actually have any real success but I dont really know.

In other news; earlier tonight got off the phone with the main selector here in Munster. He said that I was down to referee Munster U18 v Munster U19 tonight and was reminding me (as it wasnt on the website). He then briefly asked me how my project was coming along and I told him it was due tomorrow morning and I wasnt quite finished but I was happy to do the game and just tackle it late tonight.

He told me that studies come first and that he wasnt happy to give me the game in the circumstances; that he wouldnt want be responsible for me rushing my projects. I mean its great that I can put the project aside within the next hour and get to bed by 2am but that would have been a superb fixture.

I know it was sensible decision but im diasappointed. Sorry about the rant!

 

[Davet]

Donal,

Understood - but priority is always your studies, you know that... but it doesn't make it easier to bear.