blonde poker forum

I played rugby (ok it was a few years ago) at a high level. In all my time playing any serious infringements of the laws of the game, use of boot etc, was dealt with by the Rugby authorities in the form of suspension or outright ban. In other words if it happened on the field of play it was dealt with outside of law courts etc. Personally I feel this was right, heat of battle and all that. I know it has raised its head in other sports, Duncan Fergason 3 months for a head butt, Eric Cantona no custodial sentence for Kung Foo.

Now a Rugby player has been given a 15 month jail term for stamping.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/7090654.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/7090654.stm)

Thoughts ?????

Im a football referee, and I am not fully decided on this..

I have seen people headbutting, fighting etc, and I keep reminding players when they are getting booked / sent off for various offences that if the recepient wanted to report it to the police, they would be within their rights as assault is assault.

I am very open to peoples views on this.

I think its difficult to comment on the case you have highlighted, but if it was done maliciously then yes he deserves it, nobody goes onto a sports field/ game to be assaulted..

The rules of sport can't take precedence over the law of the land.  The courts will take into account the circumstances around the incident, but if what happened was a 'crime', then some form of punishment has to happen, surely?

If a player stamped on another player and murdered him, you'd expect the courts to get involved.  If he seriously injured the player, then the same applies?  For less serious incidents, like you said, the sporting bodies can deal with it. 

Looking at this specific case, it hardly warrants a custodial sentence though.

In one sense I'd agree with this - it doesn't exactly seem as though he's a threat to the public if he's not playing rugby, so personally I don't see the point of locking him up. That said - deliberately stamping on someone's head is a pretty serious assault, and is clearly "outside" the game. By which I mean that if you play rugby you basically sign up to getting knocked about and trodden on, whether within or against the rules of the game - but you don't and can't sign up to having someone deliberately kick your head in.

Say in cricket someone bowls a deliberate beamer at you - it's against the rules (Laws) but the rules take it into account, so it's part of the game. If the ball breaks your nose then it's unpleasant but it's a risk you took. But if the bowler ran straight through the crease and hurled the ball at your head from 8 yards away, then that's outside the game and therefore I think it would be fair enough to prosecute.

You get less than 15 months for robbing someone on the street though.

I agree that you don't play a sport expecting to be assaulted and, additionally, implicitly agree not to let the matter be dealt with by the Criminal process. Ok, rugby is a hard played game and injuries happen in the normal course of a game, this was not one of those times. It was an assault and it caused a nasty injury. Aggravating features in the Sentencing Guidelines include attacking a victim on the ground and so vulnerable, blows to the head and using weapons, including feet (even without boots). Unlikely the sentence would be successfully appealed.

couldnt agree more, thats sums it up,  the rules of sport cant take precedence over the law,
bad tackles will always happen and as long as it was not ment to hurt the player,its just part of the game, what i look for is malice, if a player does anything deliberate to seriously harm another player, why does it matter if it happens on some sports field, in the past there where certain footballers we all knew, whos job was to kick somebody all over the pitch , i wonder how many young players in the past had the world in front of them only for some thug with half there skill to put them out of the game for life,

how do laws work re boxing UFC etc? you can go down a gym and fight someone but if you do the same outside a nightclub obv you get nicked.

By getting into the ring, you're giving your consent for the other person to smack you about according to the rules of the sport.  If you're in a boxing ring and the other person whips out a baseball bat and smacks you round the head with it - they'd be prosecuted in the same way if they did that to you in the street.

The idea of consent is a strange one though.  As I'm sure Robert or someone will be able to explain in more detail (with their legal background - nothing more than that obviously), there are cases of people being prosecuted for S&M activities - even though both parties were willing and consenting adults. 

This is true. There was a famous (in the law sense) case in 1994 about consent with regards to S+M, and basically for the more depraved S+M people, despite giving their consent, its still GBH as you cannot give consent to someone to cause GBH on your person.

I should imagine that it would be the same for boxing and UFC, should a case like that ever come to trial.

The law does not allow you to consent to be seriously injured. However it is felt to be in the public good to allow "violent" sports to exist, such as boxing as it firms up the youth of the day. Various reasons are given such as it makes for fine upstanding and hardened adults more able to cope with the rigors of life, especially in times of a threat to National Security.

As for S&M activities, the courts feel that it does not serve the public good to allow those to be given the same leeway. Operation Spanner being the most famous. This case, R v Brown (I think, it was a long time ago) went the distance through the appellate courts.

Side note: The S&M case included people agreeing to have "sensitive parts" of their bodies nailed to boards, some, not so clever, chap videoed it and that is what fell into the hands of the police and set off the inquiry. The officer in charge of the investigation was asked why it was called "Operation Spanner", he replied that when he saw the video it made his nuts tighten.

I knew Robert would know all about the law of S&M.

:)up

if a guy took out a guy and shot another in the heat of the game you saying it should stay "in the game"

just as if a player assaults another then the law of the land takes over

what should and shouldnt be considered assault isnt for me to deside but if the cap fits it should be worn

No absolutely not, my post was really about the severity and where does it stop. If I punch a guy on the field will I be prosecuted ?, if I rake him (cue NZ) to get him off the ball will I be prosecuted?. This game had no TV to play back and was a private procescution I think. I do not condone the use of the boot to excess (ie to the head). Brian O'Driscoll was speared and could have broken his neck -- no prosecution --- he was out longer than the victim in this case who was back playing rugby fairly quickly. I accept of course all the arguments here but do we need a definitive ruling. In the case of being on the ground, in most rucks there are people on the ground. Intent ? how is assault defined and by who ?  Do we have to have legal watchers at each match to police this ?

I just think its a minefield and will soon become prevalent for "minor" altercations

When you step on the field of play, you don't step outside the law of the land.

The main reason I hate rugby so much is that its so common to either stamp or tread on people. Bunch of thugs who like a ruck but aren't actually tough enough to get in a cage or a ring.

Combat sports are obviously a bit different, but the strikes occur within a set of rules and there's disclaimers, insurance forms and consent forms.
When the bell goes at the end of a round or a ref stops a fight to award a victory, if the winner were to sit on top of the loser and continue pounding, that would obviously be an assault.

Stamping on someones head is sickening, especially with a pair of studded boots on. There may be some grey areas, but stamping on a head is not one

Good judgement, good sentence

this isnt a new thing - 12 years ago (yikes!) I was playing in a local rugby match , a real grudge match, uddingston vs hamilton, where the hamilton winger, completely unprovoked made a bee-line from the wing, to the back of the ruck to stick the nut on one of our front row players.

As it happens, the guy had a bit pf previous, so when found guilty of assault in the courtroom, he was given a custodial sentence.

A few weeks after this, there was the more publicised case (at a higher level) of the match in edinburgh involving a preston lodge player who performed a similar headbutt. This one was caught on camera, and resulted I believe in a 9 month prison sentence.

Several years (1988) before this, 4 players found themselves up before the beak on charges ranging from breach of the peace, to common assault, after another quiet Celtic V Rangers match.


The sports field is not different than any other public area. The safety of the public needs to be defended, whether they are out walking their dog, or whether they are partaking in a sporting activity. The balance is about right at the moment, in that minor infarctions will be punished within the game, whereas there will be occasions where a more severe punishment is needed.

but it is nothing new.

oh yeah i would of loved to have stepped into the ring with you back in the day after a statement like that might of been a bit of a miss match but that is a better reason for you to HATE rugby in that they put the 11st guys on the field with the 18st guys

fairly obvious you know nothing about the game, so why dont you keep your @(ignorant) opinions to yourself.

(http://www.drinkstuff.com/productimg/2977.jpg)

calm down, calm down :)

As it happens I was forced to play the game for 5 years at school.

I'm also comfortable fighting 18st guys in a martial arts situation.

And I'm entitled to calmly give my opinion

The school I went to wanted to break into rugby, it already had a good footie team and one of the best rowing schools. I picked rugby as I was crap at football. I have also done my fair share of milling in a ring. I am also entitled to give a view. I choose rowing.

Is that
v.   intr. Nautical
To propel a boat with or as if with oars.

or

v.   
A boisterous disturbance or quarrel; a brawl.

 ;whistle; ;angel;

getting off on two guys wearing lycra and contiously groping each other around the groin area  I would consider more sickening...

The former as a past time, the latter, controlled, as a profession.

Rugby League is a far better game than Union anyway... ;whistle;

I think that all this proves is that sports are changing to reflect societies attitude to violence in general.

Years ago I remember JPR Williams being raked in the face by a New Zealand forward in  Bridgend V The tourists game when he found himself on the wrong side of the ruck, he was taken away had several stitches (over 20) in various parts of his face and was scarred afterwards, his response was "well I shouldn't have been on their side of the ruck so it's fair game - though the guy shouldn't have been wearing metal studs". 3 weeks later JPR was in the Welsh team playing NZ and shook the guys hand before the game - 5 minutes in he booted an up'n'under almost down the guys throat and careered into the legal tackle with rather more force than normal (Now rightly or wrongly that couldn't happen nowadays as the original offender would be banned for several games and not be in the International match due to the first incident).

However my point is that too a certain extent sports are physical activities and in most team sports body contact is involved so to a certain extent they have to be self-policing. I think for the outside law to get involved the situation needs to be something particularly unsavoury and outside the usual confines of the sport. Stamping on a player in a ruck whilst nasty and dangerous is not wholly outside the confines of the sport of Rugby (where legally in a ruck players are allowed to "encourage players out of the way of the ball using non-excessive foot contact", so a stamp on a body part is a foul but still part of the game and therefore self-regulation should take place).

I am neither condoning the guys actions or stating that the sentence is wrong here, just I think the law needs to be very certain that an assault has taken place and not just an exaggerated (sp) sporting occurence as otherwise it is setting a rather rigid precedence which could have a far seeing effect on all contact sports and also to the legal system and sport insurance companies as a whole.

The question in hand is, is it an Appropriate Sentence ???
Which obviously depends on the situation, My view that a punch in the gob or a stud in the head has always being part of the game. Right or Wrong and other than extreme situation should stay on the pitch.  
However If the victim of the assault feels it is a case for the courts to decide on then it has to be judged as any other assault. 15 months seems extreme, compared to the leniancy given to burgulars and drug dealers. IMO
I also played rugby ( at county level) and am one of those 11st guys, not a problem I can assure you and it was my choice.
Rugby is probably one of the most honorable games going and anyone who has played the game (by choice not because your teacher said you had to) would know that.

then why do martail arts split down wieght groupings then

when i dabbled i would never of been allowed to compete against you not because of a gap in the skills but becuse of my height and weight advantaged it would of been an unfair fight

on the rugby pitch they normally get the little guy and put him in the centre of the scrum but then again its normally a little guy with wieght behind him

Ha Ha now your just stiring  ;ifm;

Agreed


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=i5EHW7op9us

I don't train martial arts for the business of sport. I train for real fights. I can't pick the size of my assailant in the street so I need to train my techniques against opponents of all sizes.

For the purposes of sport, weight classes GENERALLY make fights more evenly matched, although as Royce Gracie proved at the inception of UFC, size and strength advantages don't automatically win you the fight.

thats all a bit off topic really

Do you live in a really dangerous area ? Why would anyone "train" for real fights, unless you go out looking for them...

;iagree; Shouldn't you be training to defend yourself, I thought this was the principal, not so you can have 'real fights'.

anywhere can be a dangerous area.

self PROTECTION not self defence

General fighting thread if you want to discuss it further.
this is a rugby thread

nah, I like this thread.

i just dont get why anyone would train to fight, just incase someone attacked them - do you know the chances of being involved in a violent crime are less than 3% ?

I can just about understand the guys who train for the UFC/KFC fighting stuff, in the cage and that, (although it is really about 95% groping and 5% action), but training to fight with no real goals seems a bit  :dontask:

Not tough enough, you've obviously never played this sport at any decent level. To Stereotype like this truly shows you ignorance, and bias towards the sport you follow.
Talk about thugs I am a fan of the UFC, Boxing and combat sports in general but watching each season of TUF shows posturing testosterone every season out of the ring.
Based on the topic of this thread Should the Guy on TUF that bounced his house mates head off the concrete also get sent to prison ???

yeah, why not

I've had dates like that.

I'm told that sparring is the most fun you can have with your clothes on. My daughter will be learning how to fight. You know that Adam was mugged/beaten up by was it 3? people a few years ago yeah? I think it's quite understandable he doesn't want that to happen again.

why on earth would you be teaching your daughter to "fight" ?

3 plus a look out yeah

I was training before that but it certainly made me move away from sport orientated techniques and concentrate on the physical and psychological elements of street violence.

why would you NOT teach your kids to protect themselves?

argh VERY of topic

self confidence
less likely to be bullied at school/work
less likely to be raped
less likely to be slapped about by husband/boyfriend.
etc etc


why would I not get her fight trained?

 ;iagree; :goodpost:

I got beat up by three guys once, one with a very heavy pool queue. I went to hospital, got patched up, went home, and thought "better stay away from that area in the future".

I didnt try to turn myself into Charles Bronson.

if this is what is going on behind the locked doors of suburbia then I would respectfully suggest that society is totally fucked, and that the fearmongers in fleet street and the broadcast media have won.

With respect Laz, We've all seen you. you're a massive dude.

Life's a lot more dangerous when you're 5'9" and 12st and even more so when you're a 5'2" 7st lady

i would suggest that when someone is pounding away at yer face with a pool queue, then being large doesnt make much difference :)

but anyway, its an interesting topic, but as you say, way off topic.

I wonder if the severity of the sentence had anything to do with the judge being a big fan of the game?

Perhaps Rhys Garfield is doing 6 months for stomping, and 9 more for bringing Rugby into disrepute.

crap sentence, It's getting to the point where you cant have a decent after pub ruck without having to worry about getting 2+ years in jail, what they used to call affray is now GBH, its getting silly.

I feel sorry for all the boys that are on steroids, thats a proper commitment to physical training and what good is it doing if you're getting these stupidly exaggerated sentences, thats why everyone gets tooled up, you cant have a straight ruck anymore.

its the binge drinking culture thats ruining everything for all the purists out there that go out have a good night out and a proper ruck afterwards now the old Bill are coming down heavy cos all the Muppet's getting slaughtered and rolling around with eachother on the street so that the documentary camera crew get some good footage for a dissaproving trevor mcdonald to rebuke.

and what makes me laugh about mcdonald is that make in the Caribbean he was a yardie but a load of gear went missing and thats when he cut his hair and came over here, how hypocritical is what he's doing now?

i've been beat up by 3 para's once the fact i got beat up dispite being trained wasnt anything to so with the fact they were better than me it was the fact there was 3 of them

the only thing my training did was allow me to remain calm in the situtation and proctect myself so i didnt suffer any serious injury

martial arts wont help you WIN if you get into a postion where you are attacked by a supieror force
it will allow you to remain calm and protect yourself from serious harm

rugby training helps you protect yourself from serious injury in a scrum or ruck

fighting to inflict injury is stupid and something that most people grow out of i know i have

Bolty for MP

My training did the same for me when I was attacked. Once I'd got myself in a situation where 3 guys were thumping me in the back of the head that's all it was ever going to do.

Good self protection martial arts should deal with conflict avoidance, situational awareness and negotiation as much as it deals with striking techniques. The intention should be that all striking is done as a last resort but also pre-emtively

Yes thats right get your retaliation in first.....

pretty much

The fight has started long before the first punch is thrown.
It can also be won or lost before the first punch is thrown.

This is tenuously linked to the original question actually.

There's a very fine line walked by self protection martial artists.
Pre-emtive striking is very tricky to justify in court. The law isn't particularly clear on what constitutes 'reasonable force'

If me or one of my students finds ourself in a situation where we feel we have to resort to violence to protect ourself we have to be aware that, as the Rugger player in the OP found, actions invariably have consequences.

It's at that point I call on character witnesses in the form of the policeman and prison officers who I train and hope that's enough.

(from experience, both working with and training) The very people who indulge in uneccessary thuggery and try to pass it off as "reasonable force"

Geo

Alfie Lewis (quite a well known martial artist in Liverpool) had four people  looking to 'do him mischief', two approached him from the front and two from the back.  Instead of waiting to be hit, he punched the biggest one of his 'assailants', knocked him out and when his head hit the pavement the force killed him.

The court found him innocent of his charges, saying that he'd acted in self-defence and had used reasonable force.

a bit of rare justice.
There are similar stories where this has happened and the hero of the story has gone to prison.
It's a very fine line.



My policeman and Prison officers are good guys and girls.
There are thugs in all proffessions, but that doesn't make it typical

If someone stands on my face when i refuse to roll away from the wrong side of a maul, they (and i) should be dealt with by the game, the police should be involved if it was obviously someone looking to cause me serious harm. - Custodial for that guy ???? madness, ban him from rugby for a long period and community sentence, how does it benefit society if he goes to prison? However we don't know his previous and maybe there is reason to send him away.

At the same time this week a famous actor gets his 'long' sentence (only 10 months ffs) for downloading child pornography halved as it was too harsh???? He is a paedophile and has been found guilty by a jury.

I have 4 kids, i want them to grow up as honest, kind, caring and thoughtful, I'll make them aware as i can of the dangers in life, i will teach them of the positives of education and communication, and i will encourage them in all sporting activities. There are better ways to solve violence than with more violence. Infact it makes it harder for the police to prosecute the bad guys.

Fighting has its place, in the right sporting context, never on the streets.

Old lady gets her bag snatched, a pedestrian sees it happen and trips up the offender as he runs past, he then sits on him and calls the police. Outcome- The offender gets 40 hours community service, the hero gets charged with assault by the cps and only gets dismissed when the judge throws out the case...

Training kids to fight do martial arts etc- fantastic, if its done for the right reasons- so they can learn to punch first against the bad guys?...I'm not sure. Any sport is good for kids, rugby is one of the best, and its a game that in the modern context is better than ever. I just hope the Brussels/PC brigade go gentle on all contact sports.

you have to remember that Martial arts weren't designed for sport.
Adaptations of martial arts for sport can be very entertaining but have very little relevance to the business of protecting yourself on the streets.
I have a real issue with kickboxing / tai kwon do / sport karate clubs who claim to teach self defense then spend all their time teaching hook kicks, axe kicks, spinning back kicks and all that jazz.