Is it all right to commit a crime on a playing field?
Discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eie7maojvr0
Hohaia has just said that he cannot continue to play due to concussion problems.
The assault on him consisted of one punch which floored him and the second, where he was unable to defend himself, was out of the floor with his head on the ground.
The force of a punch to the head is reinforced in the head is restrained. This is true even if the blow glances off to an extent. Memory fades, as I read this on a report of brain damage in an assault where the offender said he only hit him lightly and to prove it he hadn't broken his knuckles. Such a defence is technically known as a guilty plea.
That was outside a club but very similar. The offender punched the victim during a contretemps, the victim fell backwards onto some steps, with his head on the top step. The offender then deliberately punched the bloke while he was unconscious. The police pushed for GBH with intent and the CPS, after a struggle, accepted GBH given that the victim had brain damage.
There were a number of factors about the offence. There were two punches. The first was hard enough to render the victim unconscious. There was the fall to the ground, which in the crime was unlikely, our doctor said, to cause any measurable injury in normal circs, but given the initial assault may have done. The third was the second punch. If a person's head is fixed, i.e. unable to react to the punch, then the brain moves in the skull and the fluid surrounding the brain goes in an odd way, meaning that the brain impacts the front of the skull, then the back and then the front again.
The chap suffered swelling of the brain and a bit of the skull was removed or drilled out, memory not so good now.
This was caught on poor quality video but as soon as I saw the punch during the match I thought of this crime and I reckoned that Hohaia was lucky not to be seriously injured.
We all accept a bit of forceful play during a match, but there are limits, and serious brain injury which was caused by a deliberate act tends to cross that line I feel.
So, is it a crime or not? Is it OK to be punched? Is it OK to be punched when unconscious and unable to defend yourself?
Hohaia has just said that he cannot continue to play due to concussion problems.
The assault on him consisted of one punch which floored him and the second, where he was unable to defend himself, was out of the floor with his head on the ground.
The force of a punch to the head is reinforced in the head is restrained. This is true even if the blow glances off to an extent. Memory fades, as I read this on a report of brain damage in an assault where the offender said he only hit him lightly and to prove it he hadn't broken his knuckles. Such a defence is technically known as a guilty plea.
That was outside a club but very similar. The offender punched the victim during a contretemps, the victim fell backwards onto some steps, with his head on the top step. The offender then deliberately punched the bloke while he was unconscious. The police pushed for GBH with intent and the CPS, after a struggle, accepted GBH given that the victim had brain damage.
There were a number of factors about the offence. There were two punches. The first was hard enough to render the victim unconscious. There was the fall to the ground, which in the crime was unlikely, our doctor said, to cause any measurable injury in normal circs, but given the initial assault may have done. The third was the second punch. If a person's head is fixed, i.e. unable to react to the punch, then the brain moves in the skull and the fluid surrounding the brain goes in an odd way, meaning that the brain impacts the front of the skull, then the back and then the front again.
The chap suffered swelling of the brain and a bit of the skull was removed or drilled out, memory not so good now.
This was caught on poor quality video but as soon as I saw the punch during the match I thought of this crime and I reckoned that Hohaia was lucky not to be seriously injured.
We all accept a bit of forceful play during a match, but there are limits, and serious brain injury which was caused by a deliberate act tends to cross that line I feel.
So, is it a crime or not? Is it OK to be punched? Is it OK to be punched when unconscious and unable to defend yourself?
The first punch was in retaliation for the immediately previous high/late tackle. Not good, but kind of understandable in the heat of the moment.
The second punch was the cheapest of cheap shots and utterly unacceptable. it was an assault on a defenceless victim. The only thing to be debated is the level.
The second punch was the cheapest of cheap shots and utterly unacceptable. it was an assault on a defenceless victim. The only thing to be debated is the level.
scottfraser100 said:
Personally I'd have him banned from the game as well as the union alternative.
I'd then have a private prosecution taken out against him with damages.
Quite. Horrible, thuggish punch. That was a vicious move from someone who has no right to play.I'd then have a private prosecution taken out against him with damages.
(I've played and had my injuries but none were intentional)
Edited by Vaud on Thursday 30th April 21:51
At 1.18 Flowers attacks Hohaia from behind causing him to fall to the floor. The ball is nowhere in the vicinity & the action is entirely unjustifiable.
Flowers then runs down the pitch & rejoins the play.
Hohaia runs down the pitch, totally ignoring the ball & attacks Flowers - video at 1.20 on.
Both players then visibly separate.
Flowers then attacks Hohaia knocking him to the ground before administering the on the ground punch.
Flowers has been dealt with within the RFL by banning & fining.
Hohaia should have been dealt with more severely for his behaviour.
IMO Flowers should also be dealt with in respect of injuries sustained by Hohaia by way of criminal prosecution - assuming Hohaia wishes to make a complaint.
It will be interesting to see how this ends up.
Flowers then runs down the pitch & rejoins the play.
Hohaia runs down the pitch, totally ignoring the ball & attacks Flowers - video at 1.20 on.
Both players then visibly separate.
Flowers then attacks Hohaia knocking him to the ground before administering the on the ground punch.
Flowers has been dealt with within the RFL by banning & fining.
Hohaia should have been dealt with more severely for his behaviour.
IMO Flowers should also be dealt with in respect of injuries sustained by Hohaia by way of criminal prosecution - assuming Hohaia wishes to make a complaint.
It will be interesting to see how this ends up.
Edited by paintman on Thursday 30th April 21:57
DocJock said:
The first punch was in retaliation for the immediately previous high/late tackle. Not good, but kind of understandable in the heat of the moment.
The second punch was the cheapest of cheap shots and utterly unacceptable. it was an assault on a defenceless victim. The only thing to be debated is the level.
The 'immediately previous high/late tackle' looked in retaliation for Flower clattering Hohaia from behind a few seconds previously to that, at about 1.15 in the video. Still there might have been yet more though before that!The second punch was the cheapest of cheap shots and utterly unacceptable. it was an assault on a defenceless victim. The only thing to be debated is the level.
Shameful though and barely a glance at his victim still flat out as he left the pitch.
An old work acquaintance got six months for breaking someone's jaw on the (union) pitch about 25 years ago, was there any talk of a prosecution here?
Edited to add - typing as paintman posted
Also does there need to be a complaint? plenty of witnesses
Very lucky not to have sight damaged as well, second punch directly into his eye
Edited by mfmman on Thursday 30th April 22:05
paintman said:
IMO Flowers should also be dealt with in respect of injuries sustained by Hohaia by way of criminal prosecution - assuming Hohaia wishes to make a complaint.
It will be interesting to see how this ends up.
It is interesting that this factor makes the news.It will be interesting to see how this ends up.
When I read it, that angle seemed to be the suggestion that the actions of the accused has ended someone's professional sporting career.
I remember a case some years back whose Man Utd career was ended through injury at 18 years old or so. Nearly a decade later a court took into account his likely earnings to show loss to the insurance company.
A lad at work played for a local major 2nd team. Received a bad tackle and turned and punched the player in question. The result was 6 months for GBH with intent. Even the ref was sympathetic.
The OPs example need s to be dealt with in court. That was just wrong.
Has there ever been a case where police have made on field arrests?
The OPs example need s to be dealt with in court. That was just wrong.
Has there ever been a case where police have made on field arrests?
Tough one to call.
2 minutes into the biggest game of his career, fired up, adrenaline clouding his judgement. What he did was wrong and he's been punished. A playing field, particularly a rugby field has to be dealt with differently in the eyes of the law. Every tackle is an assault. A high tackle arguable more dangerous than a punch, do we arrest every player?
Was this the first concussion of Hohaia's career? Having played league I doubt it.
You take the field knowing you could be seriously hurt. Be that through fair play or foul. Don't like the risk don't take to the field.
Not a crime for me. Terrible for Hohaia and it's put concussion and sport rightly in the spotlight but criminal proceedings would set a dangerous precedent for contact sports.
2 minutes into the biggest game of his career, fired up, adrenaline clouding his judgement. What he did was wrong and he's been punished. A playing field, particularly a rugby field has to be dealt with differently in the eyes of the law. Every tackle is an assault. A high tackle arguable more dangerous than a punch, do we arrest every player?
Was this the first concussion of Hohaia's career? Having played league I doubt it.
You take the field knowing you could be seriously hurt. Be that through fair play or foul. Don't like the risk don't take to the field.
Not a crime for me. Terrible for Hohaia and it's put concussion and sport rightly in the spotlight but criminal proceedings would set a dangerous precedent for contact sports.
Bit of a Unit said:
Tough one to call.
2 minutes into the biggest game of his career, fired up, adrenaline clouding his judgement. What he did was wrong and he's been punished. A playing field, particularly a rugby field has to be dealt with differently in the eyes of the law. Every tackle is an assault. A high tackle arguable more dangerous than a punch, do we arrest every player?
Was this the first concussion of Hohaia's career? Having played league I doubt it.
You take the field knowing you could be seriously hurt. Be that through fair play or foul. Don't like the risk don't take to the field.
Not a crime for me. Terrible for Hohaia and it's put concussion and sport rightly in the spotlight but criminal proceedings would set a dangerous precedent for contact sports.
I'd agree with you regards the first punch. The second has no place in sport or society, it was assault. 2 minutes into the biggest game of his career, fired up, adrenaline clouding his judgement. What he did was wrong and he's been punished. A playing field, particularly a rugby field has to be dealt with differently in the eyes of the law. Every tackle is an assault. A high tackle arguable more dangerous than a punch, do we arrest every player?
Was this the first concussion of Hohaia's career? Having played league I doubt it.
You take the field knowing you could be seriously hurt. Be that through fair play or foul. Don't like the risk don't take to the field.
Not a crime for me. Terrible for Hohaia and it's put concussion and sport rightly in the spotlight but criminal proceedings would set a dangerous precedent for contact sports.
I deal with the parents of children who play rugby. When they ask about injuries and such I bring in a little research that I did a little while ago about the comparative risks of soccer and rugby, with most emphasis on the restrictions placed on under 18 (ish) rugby. Often parents will bring up the assaults on pitch. You'd be surprised at the frequency of the Lions O'Driscoll spiking.
Legally, it is a serious assault. It matters not that the career ending concussion might not have happened if the chap had not had previous injuries. I had a case of an arrested hydrocephalic who sustained multiple fractures of the skull during a beating, the seriousness of the injuries a result of the thinness of the chap's skull. Still went down for GBH. The appeal generated severe criticisms from the judges regarding the lack of remorse and surfeit of justification by the accused (via his brief).
There are defences to assault but none were, I think, available to the offender here.
The question I wanted answered, and thanks for doing so, was whether the excuse of it happening on a rugby pitch a reasonable justification for such behaviour. The comments in the press at the time were, perhaps, a little mixed and this was brought up by some parents.
My son comes from the pitch most Saturdays with a bruise or two from a punch or four. Our last match of the season was particularly fierce but, and this, I think, is the difference, was all within limits of what the players would find acceptable.
Someone mentioned a high tackle. Intent in the thing. Most HTs are due to poor play and not a deliberate attempt to injure. I feel that one can't say that for this case.
I saw one lad sustain a complex fracture of the thigh bone and knee joint following a maul that was pulled down. It is against the laws of course, but the person who pulled it down neither intended anyone to get injured, nor expected an injury. Just part of the game. The lad - it was an under 19s match - never walked properly again, let alone played rugby.
That's bad enough, but a deliberate attack . . .
Thanks for your thoughts. I was wondering if I was out on my own.
Legally, it is a serious assault. It matters not that the career ending concussion might not have happened if the chap had not had previous injuries. I had a case of an arrested hydrocephalic who sustained multiple fractures of the skull during a beating, the seriousness of the injuries a result of the thinness of the chap's skull. Still went down for GBH. The appeal generated severe criticisms from the judges regarding the lack of remorse and surfeit of justification by the accused (via his brief).
There are defences to assault but none were, I think, available to the offender here.
The question I wanted answered, and thanks for doing so, was whether the excuse of it happening on a rugby pitch a reasonable justification for such behaviour. The comments in the press at the time were, perhaps, a little mixed and this was brought up by some parents.
My son comes from the pitch most Saturdays with a bruise or two from a punch or four. Our last match of the season was particularly fierce but, and this, I think, is the difference, was all within limits of what the players would find acceptable.
Someone mentioned a high tackle. Intent in the thing. Most HTs are due to poor play and not a deliberate attempt to injure. I feel that one can't say that for this case.
I saw one lad sustain a complex fracture of the thigh bone and knee joint following a maul that was pulled down. It is against the laws of course, but the person who pulled it down neither intended anyone to get injured, nor expected an injury. Just part of the game. The lad - it was an under 19s match - never walked properly again, let alone played rugby.
That's bad enough, but a deliberate attack . . .
Thanks for your thoughts. I was wondering if I was out on my own.
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/mi...
A chap,at my old club was in a similar scenario (although I seem to remember it was an eye-gouging as well as a punch)
A chap,at my old club was in a similar scenario (although I seem to remember it was an eye-gouging as well as a punch)
Bit of a Unit said:
Tough one to call.
2 minutes into the biggest game of his career, fired up, adrenaline clouding his judgement. What he did was wrong and he's been punished. A playing field, particularly a rugby field has to be dealt with differently in the eyes of the law. Every tackle is an assault. A high tackle arguable more dangerous than a punch, do we arrest every player?
Was this the first concussion of Hohaia's career? Having played league I doubt it.
You take the field knowing you could be seriously hurt. Be that through fair play or foul. Don't like the risk don't take to the field.
Not a crime for me. Terrible for Hohaia and it's put concussion and sport rightly in the spotlight but criminal proceedings would set a dangerous precedent for contact sports.
You enter into a sport in effect agreeing to a level of "assault", otherwise as you say tackles would be assault. Some sports are based around assault (boxing etc). The big difference is that there are rules to any sport, so you know what you are getting into.2 minutes into the biggest game of his career, fired up, adrenaline clouding his judgement. What he did was wrong and he's been punished. A playing field, particularly a rugby field has to be dealt with differently in the eyes of the law. Every tackle is an assault. A high tackle arguable more dangerous than a punch, do we arrest every player?
Was this the first concussion of Hohaia's career? Having played league I doubt it.
You take the field knowing you could be seriously hurt. Be that through fair play or foul. Don't like the risk don't take to the field.
Not a crime for me. Terrible for Hohaia and it's put concussion and sport rightly in the spotlight but criminal proceedings would set a dangerous precedent for contact sports.
Once a player steps out of those rules then its assault. The other party has not agreed to it implicitly or explicitly, and it should be treated like any other assault.
98elise said:
You enter into a sport in effect agreeing to a level of "assault", otherwise as you say tackles would be assault. Some sports are based around assault (boxing etc). The big difference is that there are rules to any sport, so you know what you are getting into.
Once a player steps out of those rules then its assault. The other party has not agreed to it implicitly or explicitly, and it should be treated like any other assault.
Yes, as I put above, it is Volenti Non Fit Injuria - you accept a certain degree of physical damage within the rules of the sport.Once a player steps out of those rules then its assault. The other party has not agreed to it implicitly or explicitly, and it should be treated like any other assault.
However, hitting someone unconscious on the ground is not within the remit therefore falls under criminal legislation. Also, some tackles in football have been career ending and held to be outside the remit of what a player would accept when engaging in the sport, and accordingly actionable.
Starfighter said:
Has there ever been a case where police have made on field arrests?
There would be far too much risk of further crowd trouble etc to drag a player off the field in handcuffs during a football or rugby match. I'd assume that given there is clearly no problems identifying or locating the offender, its far better to be left to deal with later on?Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff