Calum Clark "incident" with Rob Hawkins - Arm Break

[Teh Mite]

Eh? Wut?

 

[Saintjay]

I don't agree that it should be kept within rugby. This is a pretty serious act of foul play, something which could hold a prison sentence off the field. I would personally like to see things like this, along with deliberate gouging etc. referred to the police as well. Being banned from playing rugby just isn't enough sometimes.

The problem with that is at what point do you say that matter should be dealt with by the police? The simple act of punching a person carries a prison sentence as common assault. The act of swearing in front of others members of the public carries a prison sentence under section 5 of the public order act. Raising your fist and putting a person in fear of violence is an offence also. If your going to sart chasing one person you should also start chasing the others.

Should Tuialagi go to prison the his assault on Ashton? In my view it was a pretty nasty assault with the intent of causing injury or at least he was reckless as to injury being caused. How many times do we see rugby players throwing punches, the intent is to cause harm. It is only luck that stops them causing injury or a fracture. So if your going to go down that road then what?

As for the Police being involved in this, you can't prosecute an assault without a victim statement and a victim who is willing to attend court and support a prosecution. The CPS will not run a victimless prosecution as a rule, however the Police may still run an investigation and let the CPS make the final call. That's before you even get onto the intent arguement.

I think you will open up a whole big can of worms. My view let the IRB/RFU deal with it as they see fit. It throws up so many issues for instance what if the he is found not guilty by the RFU, should he still be put before 12 men good and true.

 

[Teh Mite]

Pre-note: I haven't seen the incident in question, so trolls STFU.

When did rugby turn into a world of fans baying "Oh the police should get involved". Really? REALLY?

 

[SelimNiai]

Pre-note: I haven't seen the incident in question, so trolls STFU.

When did rugby turn into a world of fans baying "Oh the police should get involved". Really? REALLY?

Totally agree, unless its something like a stabbing or a shooting its something the rugby authorities should sort out.

 

[monkeypigeon]

Totally agree, unless its something like a stabbing or a shooting its something the rugby authorities should sort out.

Well you if you attempt yank a bone out of it's socket I don't see how that's inferior to a mere flesh wound...

I suppose the question is did the act go beyond what a player can reasonably be deemed to consent to when he walked onto the sports field. A punch in the face (yes), a kick in the shins (yes), a head lock (yes), a stab wound (no), a hug (probably), a mild bite on the finger (maybe), arm purposely wrenched out of socket (no), a potentially blinding finger in the eye (no).

 

[Saintjay]

Well you if you attempt yank a bone out of it's socket I don't see how that's inferior to a mere flesh wound...

I suppose the question is did the act go beyond what a player can reasonably be deemed to consent to when he walked onto the sports field. A punch in the face (yes), a kick in the shins (yes), a head lock (yes), a stab wound (no), a hug (probably), a mild bite on the finger (maybe), arm purposely wrenched out of socket (no), a potentially blinding finger in the eye (no).

Here is the problem. Punching someone on the pitch can't be consented by a player. It is not in the rules it's not boxing. A player throws a punch and it's a good one. The impact fractures the other players jaw and it requires detailed hospital treatment. Would you or I consent to that no we would not. So what sort of punches do you reasonably consent too?.

 

[munstermuffin]

Lads it is even ridiculous to suggest getting police etc involved.
I've seen alot worst in rugby games.
However this was a total scumbag act and well I think a lengthy (6 months +) ban is required.

 

[monkeypigeon]

Here is the problem. Punching someone on the pitch can't be consented by a player. It is not in the rules it's not boxing. A player throws a punch and it's a good one. The impact fractures the other players jaw and it requires detailed hospital treatment. Would you or I consent to that no we would not. So what sort of punches do you reasonably consent too?.

See that's what people think everytime they read that argument. Players don't consent only to what's within the rules only, or else a late tackle would be an actionable tort. It's when someone goes beyond what can be reasonably expected on a rugby pitch. I'd say what Clark did is bordering on that.


I'm just arguing this point for the sake of it. Of course I think these things should be kept internal short of full on violent attack. But the point is to ask where the line is drawn?

 

[Teh Mite]

But the point is to ask where the line is drawn?

It's that same blurry line that's separating bias and overblown morality.

 

[monkeypigeon]

It's that same blurry line that's separating bias and overblown morality.

I doubt a court would consider the line between bias and overblown morality when deciding whether to accept a civil or criminal action for violent conduct on a sport.

They'd probably actually think something along the lines of what I was talking about.

 

[Teh Mite]

I doubt a court would consider the line between bias and overblown morality when deciding whether to accept a civil or criminal action for violent conduct on a sport.

They'd probably actually think something along the lines of what I was talking about.

It's take more then anything which could happen on a rugby pitch to ever get to court.

Particularly in the UK. Innocent motorists aren't allowed to drive on a rugby pitch.

 

[monkeypigeon]

It's take more then anything which could happen on a rugby pitch to ever get to court.

Particularly in the UK. Innocent motorists aren't allowed to drive on a rugby pitch.

Well that's not true. This is an issue in Ice Hockey too. Fella got got a jail sentence for this incident http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yvt0B4RXWc Clark's arm wrench is similar, off the ball and out of the blue and the player on the ground isn't really in a position to react before he's injured.

Again I'll say I don't think this type of thing should go to court, and the punch in the jaw in the story below seems an over the top reaction. But it is an issue.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Keynsham-RFC-rugby-player-jailed-assault-pitch/story-15409864-detail/story.html

 

[Saintjay]

See that's what people think everytime they read that argument. Players don't consent only to what's within the rules only, or else a late tackle would be an actionable tort. It's when someone goes beyond what can be reasonably expected on a rugby pitch. I'd say what Clark did is bordering on that.


I'm just arguing this point for the sake of it. Of course I think these things should be kept internal short of full on violent attack. But the point is to ask where the line is drawn?

The law is clearly defined and that's is the problem hence why as you say it is where would you draw the line. In english law it is simple if you punch somebody in the face it is an assault. You can't consent to being punched in rugby as the law states consent can only be given if related to activities within the rules of a game.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Glad to hear he's been cited, hopefully he gets a lengthy ban.

If he got, say, a six month ban, do the 3-4 months of off-season count towards the ban or does it go on hiatus until the season starts again?

 

[Teh Mite]

Any ban is defined in time, not number of matches. Hense England players only get long bans just before the season ends (e.g. Manu Tuilagi).

Does anybody have a link to this incident, I still ain't got a frigging clue what people are talking about.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

It's in the opening post....



With the premiership final on May 26th (if Saints were to get there) it's about 10 weeks away, so his actual ban will be 2+ weeks under the minimum (presuming it's not really long and goes in to next season).
Suppose it will probably stop him touring with England in the summer.

 

[Feicarsinn]

First post?

 

[monkeypigeon]

The law is clearly defined and that's is the problem hence why as you say it is where would you draw the line. In english law it is simple if you punch somebody in the face it is an assault. You can't consent to being punched in rugby as the law states consent can only be given if related to activities within the rules of a game.

The law is rarely clearly defined or there wouldn't be a need for lawyers (like Luimneach18). Where does the law state that consent can only be given if related to activities within the rules of the game.

I remember reading a number of cases where it was argued that a person consents activities common within the culture of the sport (or something along those lines). What you can't consent to is (I don't know what the technical term in England is) something along the lines of actual bodily harm (and a black eye isn't included in that).

I don't know English Criminal law, it's been a few years at this stage. All I can think of is R v. Billinghurst. Don't even know what happened in that. Some rugby player got done for assault I think.

 

[Teh Mite]

First post?

so it is... Shitty Android phones.

Is there any sort of possibility, you, just to consider the slim chance, that Wood rolling off Hawkins back and landing on his arm maybe just possibly could have been the primary cause of any injury??

I know of course there's not where near as much cause for hysteria and knee-jerk witch hunting witch thoughts like that, therefore not popular, but in a world where hating on the Murdoch family is "cool", maybe people could not behave like he employs them...

 

[monkeypigeon]

It's that blurry line between bias and overblown morality again.