Joe Marler - Alun Wyn Jones Assault
Discussion
I've put this on SP&L rather than the sports/rugby thread as I'm interested in the views from a legal perspective.
Following on from the incident where Joe Marler deliberately "rubbed" Alun Wyn Jones' groin to try to invoke a reaction, he failed to invoke the reaction on the field, but has managed to achieve it off the field instead with a bit of a backlash and lots of debate.
As far as I'm concerned, an assault is an assault, regardless if it takes place on a sports field or not (boxing and other martial sports not included).
If a player were to report an assault to the police that had taken place during a game, would/ should the police take action regardless of what the match officials/ governing body did about it?
Following on from the incident where Joe Marler deliberately "rubbed" Alun Wyn Jones' groin to try to invoke a reaction, he failed to invoke the reaction on the field, but has managed to achieve it off the field instead with a bit of a backlash and lots of debate.
As far as I'm concerned, an assault is an assault, regardless if it takes place on a sports field or not (boxing and other martial sports not included).
If a player were to report an assault to the police that had taken place during a game, would/ should the police take action regardless of what the match officials/ governing body did about it?
768 said:
Desiderata said:
As far as I'm concerned, an assault is an assault, regardless if it takes place on a sports field or not (boxing and other martial sports not included).
There were over 300 tackles, I hope you've got a lot of pages left in your notebook.BlackTails said:
Desiderata said:
As far as I'm concerned, an assault is an assault, regardless if it takes place on a sports field or not (boxing and other martial sports not included).
Can you explain that completely arbitrary distinction please?As far as I know, no-one consents to have their b
ks fondled on the rugby pitch.What baffles me, is minimum ban was 12 weeks, but reduced for good character and remorse, then increased for previous disciplinary record. Worth noting he tweeted "bollucks, utter bollucks" several hours after the match (and has since deleted his account).
All seems a massive contradiction.
All seems a massive contradiction.
Desiderata said:
768 said:
Desiderata said:
As far as I'm concerned, an assault is an assault, regardless if it takes place on a sports field or not (boxing and other martial sports not included).
There were over 300 tackles, I hope you've got a lot of pages left in your notebook.768 said:
Desiderata said:
768 said:
Desiderata said:
As far as I'm concerned, an assault is an assault, regardless if it takes place on a sports field or not (boxing and other martial sports not included).
There were over 300 tackles, I hope you've got a lot of pages left in your notebook.
No rugby player would hurt another players eyes/testicles and if they did the 'team elders' would deal with it, but I would say it was done to provoke a reaction ( which it did ) and not to hurt AWJ and these type of moments in the game of rugby are normally laughed off over a post match beer. . . .Good old male banter
Admittedly it was League, and in Australia, but didn't John Hopoate stick his finger up someone's arse on the pitch back in the early 2000s? In fact, I think he had three victims in one match. He was banned for twelve games or so.
IIRC the euphemism employed by the League disciplinary mob was something like "unsportsmanlike interference"
IIRC the euphemism employed by the League disciplinary mob was something like "unsportsmanlike interference"
Desiderata said:
BlackTails said:
Desiderata said:
As far as I'm concerned, an assault is an assault, regardless if it takes place on a sports field or not (boxing and other martial sports not included).
Can you explain that completely arbitrary distinction please?As far as I know, no-one consents to have their b
ks fondled on the rugby pitch.I think you will find that the reality of the way the criminal law is applied is that the consent that a player in a contact sport gives goes rather wider than "contact within the laws of the sport". Otherwise you'd have potential police involvement for every high tackle, spear tackle, neck roll and tackle of the ball carrier in the air in rugby, every studs showing soccer tackle, every single contact in netball, every time one F1 driver pushes another into the barriers, and so on. These would be criminal acts no matter what level the sport was played at. The police and courts would literally collapse under the weight of prosecutions.
The laws of rugby delineate what is expected during play. Anything outside this can constitute an assault, but it is likely that a considerable number would be deemed 'normal' play. So a block, a trip, that sort of thing, might not get much mileage with the CPS. However, a deliberate assault (battery), especially one that gave rise to an injury, could well be a criminal assault. Here's an example of one that makes me angry still.
A few years ago, my lad's team played against a London-base rugby club. Their #5 kicked my son in the head when he was in a ruck, then stamped on him. He was knocked out and suffered concussion for some weeks afterwards. He had not played competitive rugby since. The #5 then backheeled our scrum half, knocking him out. It was the third concussion this guy had had and he gave up the game. Later, the #5 was impeded in the in-goal area and he kneed one of our half-backs in the head, fracturing his cheekbone and eye-socket. He didn't play rugby again.
Each of these were criminal assaults, all missed by the ref, as the intent was clearly shown on the video recording of the first two, and the intent of the third was shown by the two previous assaults. None of the injured wished to pursue the matter via the criminal courts, much to my irritation, not only because of the injuries to my son, but because I knew that county, the discipline and punishment body, would bottle out of doing anything that might smack of effective policing of play. They gave the player 12 weeks ban. What the thug would have received in court is open to argument, but whatever it was, it would have been longer than 12 weeks. The player had a history of thuggery. When I went to a match a few weeks later, one of the spectators asked me where my lad was. When I told him he'd been seriously injured deliberately, the other guy named the team and numbered the player, as they'd had problems. As had, according to this guy, other teams.
Until the governing body reports such violent offenders to the police, assaults will continue. If you let off the thugs then such behaviour becomes acceptable.
Even twice beating the team - which I feel was equally culpable as there can be little doubt as to why they fielded a thug - this season, one where our performance hasn't been great, provides no satisfaction.
It's ruining the game.
A few years ago, my lad's team played against a London-base rugby club. Their #5 kicked my son in the head when he was in a ruck, then stamped on him. He was knocked out and suffered concussion for some weeks afterwards. He had not played competitive rugby since. The #5 then backheeled our scrum half, knocking him out. It was the third concussion this guy had had and he gave up the game. Later, the #5 was impeded in the in-goal area and he kneed one of our half-backs in the head, fracturing his cheekbone and eye-socket. He didn't play rugby again.
Each of these were criminal assaults, all missed by the ref, as the intent was clearly shown on the video recording of the first two, and the intent of the third was shown by the two previous assaults. None of the injured wished to pursue the matter via the criminal courts, much to my irritation, not only because of the injuries to my son, but because I knew that county, the discipline and punishment body, would bottle out of doing anything that might smack of effective policing of play. They gave the player 12 weeks ban. What the thug would have received in court is open to argument, but whatever it was, it would have been longer than 12 weeks. The player had a history of thuggery. When I went to a match a few weeks later, one of the spectators asked me where my lad was. When I told him he'd been seriously injured deliberately, the other guy named the team and numbered the player, as they'd had problems. As had, according to this guy, other teams.
Until the governing body reports such violent offenders to the police, assaults will continue. If you let off the thugs then such behaviour becomes acceptable.
Even twice beating the team - which I feel was equally culpable as there can be little doubt as to why they fielded a thug - this season, one where our performance hasn't been great, provides no satisfaction.
It's ruining the game.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff