Dangerous tackle in Rugby - does it apply to motorsport
Discussion
This article on the beeb interested me yesterday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-64...
In summary: a female Rugby player has gone to court and won a PI claim against another player for a malicious and dangerous tackle that left her in a wheelchair.
I thought this might have some implications for motorsport. Whilst motorsport is automatically considered inherently dangerous and you race with the knowledge that if you get damage you pay for your own repairs, we all know that sports like Rugby can offer more opportunity to be injured than racing.
We also know that bad and sometimes dangerous driving exists in racing and dare I say it, sometimes there's a bit of 'afters' where 1 driver who is aggrieved by another's overtake decides to 'punt' him or her off.
So what if that dangerous or vengeful 'punt' led to serious injury to the other driver? I would imagine the MSUK would ban the aggressor but could we now see this type of action to claim compensation for injuries?
As an aside, I don't know how, in amateur Rugby, she will get any compensation - may be the club, or player is insured, or perhaps the WRFU also have an insurance policy to cover this like the MSUK do.
any thoughts?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-64...
In summary: a female Rugby player has gone to court and won a PI claim against another player for a malicious and dangerous tackle that left her in a wheelchair.
I thought this might have some implications for motorsport. Whilst motorsport is automatically considered inherently dangerous and you race with the knowledge that if you get damage you pay for your own repairs, we all know that sports like Rugby can offer more opportunity to be injured than racing.
We also know that bad and sometimes dangerous driving exists in racing and dare I say it, sometimes there's a bit of 'afters' where 1 driver who is aggrieved by another's overtake decides to 'punt' him or her off.
So what if that dangerous or vengeful 'punt' led to serious injury to the other driver? I would imagine the MSUK would ban the aggressor but could we now see this type of action to claim compensation for injuries?
As an aside, I don't know how, in amateur Rugby, she will get any compensation - may be the club, or player is insured, or perhaps the WRFU also have an insurance policy to cover this like the MSUK do.
any thoughts?
Try watching short oval racing retaliation within reason is actively encouraged but obviously can still spill over.
What it does do is show you how petty and pathetic some arguments are in other racing, but I suppose whatever you race in there are accepted levels of contact and sportsmanship.
I have always though that damage done to people is a risk you have to take, in say stock hatch more so than perhaps single seaters, but you would expect it a little more in BTCC or Clio's than say historic Group C or at Goodwood etc etc.
But the best example I can think of is Suzuka 1990 for intent and perhaps ramifications, that Brazilian idiot drove flat out into another driver at close to 150mph, there was a case for me of all sorts of criminal intent there as once he lost the start he was determined to do it, so there was clear intent. He lost his rag, is that rational? No. You have to understand that driving into someone at 150 in a hissy fit has to have consequences over and above just not finishing the race.
Proving intent to harm in most motorsport accidents is hard and even more so because the vast amount of times people do not get hurt as in this rugby case. But Ferrari in my mind should have thrown the book at McLaren for what Senna did in 1990.
Nannini on Asch in inland in DTM was harsh. Soper on Cleland in 1992 was close to harm, but again no-one was hurt. And there were reasons it happened. Senna on Prost remains to me one of the most gross over reactions I have ever seen in sport.
I can think of another one, when Martin Schanche got out of his car in Finland in 1992, in front of the pack of cars on their next lap, but the only person potentially really hurt there was him, but again, avoidance could have caused cars to go anywhere, crowd, marshals etc, he was banned, but maybe more should and could have happened. The so called Mr Rallycross has form for doing stupid stuff like this though.
What it does do is show you how petty and pathetic some arguments are in other racing, but I suppose whatever you race in there are accepted levels of contact and sportsmanship.
I have always though that damage done to people is a risk you have to take, in say stock hatch more so than perhaps single seaters, but you would expect it a little more in BTCC or Clio's than say historic Group C or at Goodwood etc etc.
But the best example I can think of is Suzuka 1990 for intent and perhaps ramifications, that Brazilian idiot drove flat out into another driver at close to 150mph, there was a case for me of all sorts of criminal intent there as once he lost the start he was determined to do it, so there was clear intent. He lost his rag, is that rational? No. You have to understand that driving into someone at 150 in a hissy fit has to have consequences over and above just not finishing the race.
Proving intent to harm in most motorsport accidents is hard and even more so because the vast amount of times people do not get hurt as in this rugby case. But Ferrari in my mind should have thrown the book at McLaren for what Senna did in 1990.
Nannini on Asch in inland in DTM was harsh. Soper on Cleland in 1992 was close to harm, but again no-one was hurt. And there were reasons it happened. Senna on Prost remains to me one of the most gross over reactions I have ever seen in sport.
I can think of another one, when Martin Schanche got out of his car in Finland in 1992, in front of the pack of cars on their next lap, but the only person potentially really hurt there was him, but again, avoidance could have caused cars to go anywhere, crowd, marshals etc, he was banned, but maybe more should and could have happened. The so called Mr Rallycross has form for doing stupid stuff like this though.
Unfortunately it does go on in club racing. Although I was at this meeting I can't remember the "long term" outcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3nSOKdTWuQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3nSOKdTWuQ
Morning. While not the same thing, the topic got me thinking about the insurance/Brexit difficulties Northern Irish Road Racing is facing https://the-race.com/motorcycle-racing/all-norther... with the worries of consequences for the IOM TT. I can't find a link now but I'm sure I read last week that insurers are paying compensation for the fatalities from last year's TT, which just got me thinking that, as said, motorsport is dangerous, everyone knows the risks, so why are insurers paying out?
If so perhaps there are precedents similar to the issue the OP raises, albeit not as a result of malicious action by another competitor.
If so perhaps there are precedents similar to the issue the OP raises, albeit not as a result of malicious action by another competitor.
Drumroll said:
Unfortunately it does go on in club racing. Although I was at this meeting I can't remember the "long term" outcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3nSOKdTWuQ
I remember that one, but not sure the victim was long term injured? But that would seem like a slam dunk dangerous manouvre, so if it had ended in serious and permanent disability you'd probably have no option but to pursue a claim. You'd have to prove it of course, just like the Rugby player had to.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3nSOKdTWuQ
Central to the Rugby claimant's case was the evidence that the defendant had intentionally set out to hurt her.
This was backed up by witnesses, who heard her say she was going to "break her"
Does it apply in Motorsport?
To create a scenario, if a driver was heard on the radio threatening to take another car out intentionally, carried out that action and the action resulted in life changing injuries for someone then yes, there would be a case I would say.
However, these incidents are very rare. For a regular racing crash with no such intent being spelled out, one wouldn't have to worry about being hauled in to court.
This was backed up by witnesses, who heard her say she was going to "break her"
Does it apply in Motorsport?
To create a scenario, if a driver was heard on the radio threatening to take another car out intentionally, carried out that action and the action resulted in life changing injuries for someone then yes, there would be a case I would say.
However, these incidents are very rare. For a regular racing crash with no such intent being spelled out, one wouldn't have to worry about being hauled in to court.
bit of a sweeping generalisation there.
If you end up badly injured, and it's because of some poor, revengeful driving, it probably would get all the way to the high court.
Also it's not just a direct 'I'm going to get him' statement , it could include a history of bad temper between the two drivers, fisticuffs at other races and a known general dislike of each other.
However I am surprised that the Rugby case went as far as it did. As a previous poster mentioned, you compete accepting the risks.
If you end up badly injured, and it's because of some poor, revengeful driving, it probably would get all the way to the high court.
Also it's not just a direct 'I'm going to get him' statement , it could include a history of bad temper between the two drivers, fisticuffs at other races and a known general dislike of each other.
However I am surprised that the Rugby case went as far as it did. As a previous poster mentioned, you compete accepting the risks.
The thing is with that MX5 move, it was intent, there was an intentional move to put a guy on the grass, there might not have been knowledge of the consequences or the track furniture to know he was going to hit that tyre wall at high speed, it was instinctive, but it was intentional.
Just like Senna on Prost in 1990, there was clear intent, and at much higher speed at the highest level of motorsport! Yes there is a huge gravel bed there and likely no injury but that was not know at the time it happened, all that was there was rage.
Just like Senna on Prost in 1990, there was clear intent, and at much higher speed at the highest level of motorsport! Yes there is a huge gravel bed there and likely no injury but that was not know at the time it happened, all that was there was rage.
Motorsport should not be a contact sport, and the rules should be emphasised and applied and at all levels, but especially in the learning categories, such as karting.
Violent play in football became strictly regulated because of the fear that it could set an acceptable example to fans.
Of course, we all want to see close and exciting racing, and some contact will be inevitable, especially in first lap incidents. But, deliberate contact is like GBH and must be punished appropriately.
Violent play in football became strictly regulated because of the fear that it could set an acceptable example to fans.
Of course, we all want to see close and exciting racing, and some contact will be inevitable, especially in first lap incidents. But, deliberate contact is like GBH and must be punished appropriately.
Muzzer79 said:
However, these incidents are very rare. For a regular racing crash with no such intent being spelled out, one wouldn't have to worry about being hauled in to court.
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
bit of a sweeping generalisation there.
If you end up badly injured, and it's because of some poor, revengeful driving, it probably would get all the way to the high court.
Also it's not just a direct 'I'm going to get him' statement , it could include a history of bad temper between the two drivers, fisticuffs at other races and a known general dislike of each other.
However I am surprised that the Rugby case went as far as it did. As a previous poster mentioned, you compete accepting the risks.
The key is proving intent in a particular incident. It's not a sweeping generalisation to say that. If you end up badly injured, and it's because of some poor, revengeful driving, it probably would get all the way to the high court.
Also it's not just a direct 'I'm going to get him' statement , it could include a history of bad temper between the two drivers, fisticuffs at other races and a known general dislike of each other.
However I am surprised that the Rugby case went as far as it did. As a previous poster mentioned, you compete accepting the risks.
If you drive into me and cripple me, I cannot prove intent in a particular incident on the basis that we don't like each other, have fought at other races or we have a history.
It would have to be proven that, for that one incident, you intended to drive me off the track and hurt me.
Otherwise, the case is thrown out when you say "I didn't mean to do it, we were racing it was an accident"
Now, that proof of intent doesn't have to come from a smoking gun radio message - it could come from car telemetry or similar, but it has to be pretty concrete.
FWIW, I'm surprised the Rugby case went as far as it did and I'm surprised that the claimant won. Rugby is an aggressive sport, people say aggressive things about the opposition. It doesn't mean that they mean to harm them. Clearly some needle between the two of them.
It's a minefield everywhere, all it takes is the wrong person to sue, and create a legal nightmare for thousands, or indeed millions.
Case to note is motorbike racing in Ireland at present. Road racing, and circuit racing was dropped a bombshell a few weeks ago where basically they could not get insurance, basically putting an end to everything.
Of course they are now scrambling to try and resolve something, but insurance costs for whatever reason have just jumped so high, it looks like the end.
And I don't even think that insurance covers the riders....but surprised it includes circuit racing, which for most parts would be relatively safe.
Road racing, love it or hate it, nobody can ignore the huge risks and dangers and plethora of deaths there for any insurance anywhere not to want any part of it.
The bigger problem there is a world of "karen's" out there, intend on destroying anything fun, anything that uses an engine, and it seems to cost them nothing or very little to do it. But it costs us a fortune to try and defend against their attacks.
Case to note is motorbike racing in Ireland at present. Road racing, and circuit racing was dropped a bombshell a few weeks ago where basically they could not get insurance, basically putting an end to everything.
Of course they are now scrambling to try and resolve something, but insurance costs for whatever reason have just jumped so high, it looks like the end.
And I don't even think that insurance covers the riders....but surprised it includes circuit racing, which for most parts would be relatively safe.
Road racing, love it or hate it, nobody can ignore the huge risks and dangers and plethora of deaths there for any insurance anywhere not to want any part of it.
The bigger problem there is a world of "karen's" out there, intend on destroying anything fun, anything that uses an engine, and it seems to cost them nothing or very little to do it. But it costs us a fortune to try and defend against their attacks.
More to this case than the papers are reporting. There was video evidence supporting the claim it was a legal tackle, to which the club (Bracknell) and the ref agreed. The expert witness who was supporting the defendants case from the start did a complete u turn in court for some reason and has now gone to ground. Also, the claimant has only in recent couple of years gone for compensation and originally took it as a sporting injury, albeit with devastating results. I believe there will be an appeal.
sociopath said:
darreni said:
The news mentioned that the rugby player could be awarded up to £10m - where does this come from, I assume not from the guilty player?
Probably from their or their club's insurance.They may of course, then sue the player herself to get it back.
It is a very popular misconception that accepting things are dangerous obsolves people from all sorts of issues. It does not. You cannot legally, deliberately, kill anyone.
When you line up on the grid or wait for the starting drop out, you have signed up to play by the rules and for the others involved to also do so.
For the case in point, the rugby club ultimately is part of the RFU and will be required to have the appropriate insurances. Having played rugby, a lifetime ago, for 24 years, from schoolboy to first class teams, I have seen plenty of bad stuff. However, the bad old days of "shoing's" and having you head deliberately stamped on if you ended up the wrong side of the ruck are over. In the 70's and 80's it was sort of expected. But even then, you couldn't deliberately stamp a player to death, that is murder.
In the case of the court case, the defendant was judged to have performed an illegal, within the rules of the game, tackle deliberately to inflict injury on the other player. Why she likely didn't plan to put the other woman in a wheelchair for life, the action was judged to be deliberate. Getting redress for things like this is dependant on motivation. Being in a wheelchair for life is a big motivation.
Same with Motorsport, yes it can be dangerous. It does not obsolve people from doing deliberately dangerous things. Deliberately punt someone off the track, the car rolls into spectators, multiple deaths and injuries, police and HSE are definitely involved.
When you line up on the grid or wait for the starting drop out, you have signed up to play by the rules and for the others involved to also do so.
For the case in point, the rugby club ultimately is part of the RFU and will be required to have the appropriate insurances. Having played rugby, a lifetime ago, for 24 years, from schoolboy to first class teams, I have seen plenty of bad stuff. However, the bad old days of "shoing's" and having you head deliberately stamped on if you ended up the wrong side of the ruck are over. In the 70's and 80's it was sort of expected. But even then, you couldn't deliberately stamp a player to death, that is murder.
In the case of the court case, the defendant was judged to have performed an illegal, within the rules of the game, tackle deliberately to inflict injury on the other player. Why she likely didn't plan to put the other woman in a wheelchair for life, the action was judged to be deliberate. Getting redress for things like this is dependant on motivation. Being in a wheelchair for life is a big motivation.
Same with Motorsport, yes it can be dangerous. It does not obsolve people from doing deliberately dangerous things. Deliberately punt someone off the track, the car rolls into spectators, multiple deaths and injuries, police and HSE are definitely involved.
Edited by Nickjd on Monday 27th February 00:44
I would suggest most of the issues involved with this only really affect the spectators and venues.
You only have to see the issues affecting road racing in Ireland on bikes, horrendous difficulties obtaining insurance to run events, all linked to risk.
Brands Hatch viewing was ruined for me because of risk assessments linked to series that raced there twice, DTM, they asked for improvements, it was risk assessed, enormous fences and a part of the track now unable to be walked to, because of one SEAT rolling in a freak incident into a thankfully empty speccy area. DTM< stopped being there the next year, all the work done, spectating experience changed for good.
So these incidents do not seem to result in proceedings against the participants but can often result in considerable issues for fans who had no oart in it!!
You only have to see the issues affecting road racing in Ireland on bikes, horrendous difficulties obtaining insurance to run events, all linked to risk.
Brands Hatch viewing was ruined for me because of risk assessments linked to series that raced there twice, DTM, they asked for improvements, it was risk assessed, enormous fences and a part of the track now unable to be walked to, because of one SEAT rolling in a freak incident into a thankfully empty speccy area. DTM< stopped being there the next year, all the work done, spectating experience changed for good.
So these incidents do not seem to result in proceedings against the participants but can often result in considerable issues for fans who had no oart in it!!
LukeBrown66 said:
I would suggest most of the issues involved with this only really affect the spectators and venues.
You only have to see the issues affecting road racing in Ireland on bikes, horrendous difficulties obtaining insurance to run events, all linked to risk.
Brands Hatch viewing was ruined for me because of risk assessments linked to series that raced there twice, DTM, they asked for improvements, it was risk assessed, enormous fences and a part of the track now unable to be walked to, because of one SEAT rolling in a freak incident into a thankfully empty speccy area. DTM< stopped being there the next year, all the work done, spectating experience changed for good.
So these incidents do not seem to result in proceedings against the participants but can often result in considerable issues for fans who had no oart in it!!
That is not strictly true whilst the FIA were concerned about that particular area it had already been looked at by MSUK (MSA as it was then) with a view to change.You only have to see the issues affecting road racing in Ireland on bikes, horrendous difficulties obtaining insurance to run events, all linked to risk.
Brands Hatch viewing was ruined for me because of risk assessments linked to series that raced there twice, DTM, they asked for improvements, it was risk assessed, enormous fences and a part of the track now unable to be walked to, because of one SEAT rolling in a freak incident into a thankfully empty speccy area. DTM< stopped being there the next year, all the work done, spectating experience changed for good.
So these incidents do not seem to result in proceedings against the participants but can often result in considerable issues for fans who had no oart in it!!
But circuits do have to be proactive to these sorts of things. Just because a car hasn't left a circuit at that point before doesn't mean it won't.
Gassing Station | UK Club Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff