Appropriate Sentence ??

[The_duke]

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

Thoughts ??

[jizzemm]

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..

[kinboshi]

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.

[Moskvich]

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.

[kinboshi]

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

[Robert HM]

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.

[steeveg]

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.

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,

[byronkincaid]

The rules of sport can't take precedence over the law of the land

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.

[kinboshi]

The rules of sport can't take precedence over the law of the land

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. 

[KarmaDope]

The rules of sport can't take precedence over the law of the land

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.

[Robert HM]

The rules of sport can't take precedence over the law of the land

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. 

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.

[kinboshi]

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

[Ironside]

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

Thoughts ??

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

[The_duke]

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

Thoughts ??

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

[AdamM]

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