Interesting article bmb. I recall that occasionally, we would discuss at RA Branch Meetings the matter of whether Referees were adequately insured against being sued by a player or club for alleged negligence, for example, playing a game where the pitch conditions were doubtful and a player being injured or a player alleging that a referee failed to safeguard him adequately. Maybe clubs should have Liability Insurance if they don't already?
I would have thought that clubs are duty bound to have liability insurance.
I think it sets a dangerous precedent personally, particularly in a scenario where a player has not set out with the intent to injure an opponent - yes I know intent doesn't matter, but I could understand it more if it was one of those thankfully rare scenarios where the red mist has come down and a player deliberately goes out to take out an opponent, often brutally and with no care in that instance, about the consequences.
I did find it interesting that the judge used the Laws of the Game and the definitions in them to make their judgement.