+-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 953
Latest: Yorksref
New This Month: 21
New This Week: 3
New Today: 1
Stats
Total Posts: 75094
Total Topics: 5525
Most Online Today: 148
Most Online Ever: 17046
(Mon 29 Mar 2021 19:08)
Users Online
Members: 5
Guests: 107
Total: 112

Author Topic: $103k damages for a reckless tackle!  (Read 422 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bmb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,047
  • Gender: Female
  • Causing mischief & mayhem!!
  • Location: Somewhere between Poole & Budapest!
    • View Profile
    • Hungarian Football
Hajrá Lilák. Csak a Kispest. Hajrá Magyarok! Hajrá játékvezetői csapat! Soha ne add fel. Nincs sárga kérem!!! No Chris Kavanagh doesn't live in Ashton or even in the Greater Manchester area!!

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Informative Informative x 1 View List

Seagull

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Maidstone
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Retired 1998 (old Class 2)
Re: $103k damages for a reckless tackle!
« Reply #1 on: Tue 14 Mar 2023 11:44 »
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?

aaa

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,661
    • View Profile
Re: $103k damages for a reckless tackle!
« Reply #2 on: Tue 14 Mar 2023 13:01 »
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?

Under Law 5, match officials are covered and cannot be held liable.

7. Liability of Match Officials

A referee or other match official is not held liable for:

    any kind of injury suffered by a player, official or spectator
    any damage to property of any kind
    any other loss suffered by any individual, club, company, association or other body, which is due or which may be due to any decision taken under the terms of the Laws of the Game or in respect of the normal procedures required to hold, play and control a match.

Such decisions may include a decision:

    that the condition of the field of play or its surrounds or that the weather conditions are such as to allow or not to allow a match to take place
    to abandon a match for whatever reason
    as to the suitability of the field equipment and ball used during a match
    to stop or not to stop a match due to spectator interference or any problem in spectator areas
    to stop or not to stop play to allow an injured player to be removed from the field of play for treatment
    to require an injured player to be removed from the field of play for treatment
    to allow or not to allow a player to wear certain clothing or equipment
    where the referee has the authority, to allow or not to allow any persons (including team or stadium officials, security officers, photographers or other media representatives) to be present in the vicinity of the field of play
    any other decision taken in accordance with the Laws of the Game or in conformity with their duties under the terms of FIFA, confederation, national football association or competition rules or regulations under which the match is played.
« Last Edit: Tue 14 Mar 2023 13:04 by bmb »
Like Like x 1 Informative Informative x 1 View List

bmb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,047
  • Gender: Female
  • Causing mischief & mayhem!!
  • Location: Somewhere between Poole & Budapest!
    • View Profile
    • Hungarian Football
Re: $103k damages for a reckless tackle!
« Reply #3 on: Tue 14 Mar 2023 13:11 »
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.
Hajrá Lilák. Csak a Kispest. Hajrá Magyarok! Hajrá játékvezetői csapat! Soha ne add fel. Nincs sárga kérem!!! No Chris Kavanagh doesn't live in Ashton or even in the Greater Manchester area!!
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Seagull

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Maidstone
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Retired 1998 (old Class 2)
Re: $103k damages for a reckless tackle!
« Reply #4 on: Tue 14 Mar 2023 15:10 »
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?

Under Law 5, match officials are covered and cannot be held liable.

7. Liability of Match Officials

A referee or other match official is not held liable for:

    any kind of injury suffered by a player, official or spectator
    any damage to property of any kind
    any other loss suffered by any individual, club, company, association or other body, which is due or which may be due to any decision taken under the terms of the Laws of the Game or in respect of the normal procedures required to hold, play and control a match.

Such decisions may include a decision:

    that the condition of the field of play or its surrounds or that the weather conditions are such as to allow or not to allow a match to take place
    to abandon a match for whatever reason
    as to the suitability of the field equipment and ball used during a match
    to stop or not to stop a match due to spectator interference or any problem in spectator areas
    to stop or not to stop play to allow an injured player to be removed from the field of play for treatment
    to require an injured player to be removed from the field of play for treatment
    to allow or not to allow a player to wear certain clothing or equipment
    where the referee has the authority, to allow or not to allow any persons (including team or stadium officials, security officers, photographers or other media representatives) to be present in the vicinity of the field of play
    any other decision taken in accordance with the Laws of the Game or in conformity with their duties under the terms of FIFA, confederation, national football association or competition rules or regulations under which the match is played.


Very interesting and informative. Thank you. Is the wording a relatively recent addition/amendment to Law 5? I don't recall it in my day but I've been retired for 25 years.

Ref Watcher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • View Profile
Re: $103k damages for a reckless tackle!
« Reply #5 on: Tue 14 Mar 2023 15:21 »
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.
This.  And that is why it is imperative that everyone taking part in a game (referees included) needs to be sure that any game has been sanctioned by the relevant authority otherwise any insurance is likely to be invalid.  Watch out for pre-season friendlies.  Certain games are automatically sanctioned, others are not.  Know the rules.

Agree Agree x 2 Winner Winner x 1 View List

nemesis

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,277
    • View Profile
Re: $103k damages for a reckless tackle!
« Reply #6 on: Wed 15 Mar 2023 22:59 »
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?

Under Law 5, match officials are covered and cannot be held liable.

7. Liability of Match Officials

A referee or other match official is not held liable for:

    any kind of injury suffered by a player, official or spectator
    any damage to property of any kind
    any other loss suffered by any individual, club, company, association or other body, which is due or which may be due to any decision taken under the terms of the Laws of the Game or in respect of the normal procedures required to hold, play and control a match.

Such decisions may include a decision:

    that the condition of the field of play or its surrounds or that the weather conditions are such as to allow or not to allow a match to take place
    to abandon a match for whatever reason
    as to the suitability of the field equipment and ball used during a match
    to stop or not to stop a match due to spectator interference or any problem in spectator areas
    to stop or not to stop play to allow an injured player to be removed from the field of play for treatment
    to require an injured player to be removed from the field of play for treatment
    to allow or not to allow a player to wear certain clothing or equipment
    where the referee has the authority, to allow or not to allow any persons (including team or stadium officials, security officers, photographers or other media representatives) to be present in the vicinity of the field of play
    any other decision taken in accordance with the Laws of the Game or in conformity with their duties under the terms of FIFA, confederation, national football association or competition rules or regulations under which the match is played.


Very interesting and informative. Thank you. Is the wording a relatively recent addition/amendment to Law 5? I don't recall it in my day but I've been retired for 25 years.

Just curious. Can the Laws of Football be usurped or over-ridden by Common Law ?

bmb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,047
  • Gender: Female
  • Causing mischief & mayhem!!
  • Location: Somewhere between Poole & Budapest!
    • View Profile
    • Hungarian Football
Re: $103k damages for a reckless tackle!
« Reply #7 on: Thu 16 Mar 2023 00:05 »
Just curious. Can the Laws of Football be usurped or over-ridden by Common Law ?

I have no idea. The judge in this case has now set a legal precedent that gives the LOTG the same status effectively as legislation so certainly in that state it is above common law in the scheme of things, whether that would happen elsewhere is open to debate I would think.
Hajrá Lilák. Csak a Kispest. Hajrá Magyarok! Hajrá játékvezetői csapat! Soha ne add fel. Nincs sárga kérem!!! No Chris Kavanagh doesn't live in Ashton or even in the Greater Manchester area!!