The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Players who cause injury should be banned for the duration

GraeGAFIA new author
Roar Rookie
2nd April, 2012
15

A South Australian magistrate interviewed on ABC radio has adopted a unique method of imposing sentences. On occasions he has invited the victims to meet with him and, if appropriate, the offender to work out a mutually acceptable penalty with his mediation.

In the past he had been accused of being too timid in the sentences he imposed for various offences and he decided to do something about it. He invited his accusers to attend his cases, and to write down and seal what sentences they would have imposed were they the judge.

In the majority of cases his sentences were somewhat more severe than those proposed by his critics.

Contact sport has many issues with which it has to deal. As a senior referee for nearly 25 years in one of the rugby codes in years past, I have witnessed some barbaric activity on the playing field. I now watch what is offered up on television in all football codes and many other contact sports.

I question some of the goings on in two of the major codes when I see squads of legal eagles, scientists, and other so-called experts turning up at judiciary hearings to defend the severely dangerous behaviour of a perpetrator who, if the same act had taken place in civvy street, would be before a judge and jury.

Some of the penalties are hugely inadequate and obviously not deterrents.

Recently a rugby union player from Northampton in England received a 32-week suspension (from March 22nd to November 2nd 2012) for deliberately hyperextending an opponent’s arm. The injured player is out of action for at least the rest of the English rugby season.

It is my contention that the suspension should have been for a period of 32 weeks, or until the injured player is fit to recommence playing, whichever is the longer period.

Advertisement

My mind goes back to 2000 when Jarrod McCracken was injured in a dangerous spear tackle while playing for the NRL Tigers against the Storm. As a result of the injury McCracken’s football career, including a possibly lucrative stint playing in England, came to a premature halt.

It is my understanding that the perpetrators of the dangerous tackle – later successfully sued for damages by McCracken – underwent a period of suspension, but were permitted to resume their football careers and did continue playing until at least 2005.

It is my contention that they both should have been given a life ban from the game for their dangerous behaviour.

The two biggest blights on the rugby codes are the spear tackle and attacking the head of a player. Similar offences happen in other contact sports but it is mainly footballers, in all its shapes and codes, that suffer horrendous and career-ending injuries because of an opponent’s dangerous actions.

Not malicious, not unintentional, not careless, or any other adjective – the key word is dangerous.

And it is my contention that all contact sports should have, in their laws or codes of conduction, a clause that conveys the following sentiment.

In the event that a player is injured as the result of a dangerous action by an opponent, and the offender is to undergo a period of suspension, then the suspension period must be at least equal to the period taken by the injured player to recover from the injury.

Advertisement

Maybe then persons in action on the playing fields of Australia will think twice before taking the stupid and dangerous options that presently occur on far too many occasions. Maybe, one day, the rest of the world will consider including similar sentiments in their respective laws.

close