RateTheRef
General Refereeing => General Discussion => Topic started by: bmb on Tue 14 Mar 2023 04:03
-
https://www.castanetkamloops.net/news/BC/415908/North-Van-beer-league-soccer-player-ordered-to-pay-103K-for-reckless-slide-tackle?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
What do people think about this?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.