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.
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.
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.
Grae Gafia
Guest
AndyMack - it is tough enough trying to control 22 or 17 very fit men at the top of their trade without having to read their minds as well!! With all the physical contact that goes on in our footy codes there has to be a limit as to what is dangerous and what is acceptable. Please read my other response re the NZ/Scotland game in 1969. The intention is to STOP THE OPPONENT! The result is a very dangerous incident with which the ref must deal. I always adjudicated on the incident - not the result or any injury. If it demanded a sending off, the offender was asked to go in and turn on the showers. Nowadays the 'ten minutes in the bin' might be sufficient penalty and leave the rest to the appropriate judiciary. If, in assessing the suspension, it is known that the sufferer has been severely injured then it is always my opinion that the sentence must be appropriate. The recent incident involving Teo against the Tiogers is a good illustration. What Teo did was foul and dangerous - league followers are kidding themselves if they think such 'charges' are good football. The Bronco's coach disappoints me in trying to defend Teo's actions. If he had used his arms and brought about a proper tackle then things might have been different. The Tigers player had no way of defending himself. The game must defend players who find themselves in such positions. Take note of the number of league fullbacks who prefer to let 'up and unders' bounce rather than tring to catch the ball on the full. They have not been coached how to 'defend' themselves.
Grae Gafia
Guest
Shrewd Cat - please read again what I wrote. If Tony Williams tackle had caused long term injury to the opponent then Tony Williams should be out of the game for at least as long as his opponent MIGHT have been. The act in itself deserves the severe penalty plus a rider where there is a long term injury. Whether or nor there is a resulting injury has nothing to do with it. If the play was dangerous then it must be penalised. My thesis is the treatment of the sentence where there is a serious injury.I refer you to an incident which occurred in 1967 during a Rugby Test between New Zealand and Scotland. A prominent All Black was sent off because of his dangerous and foul play - he took a flying hacking kick at the ball and missed the opposing halfback's head by millimetres. If he had connected the opponent would have most probably been killed. Better to be safe and sure that very, very sorry!!
Grae Gafia
Guest
Fivehole - not everything is based on money. Maybe your comment gives rise to another branch of thuggery in the code you follow!!
Grae Gafia
Guest
Hoy - what you are really saying is that officials cannot see the difference between something that could not be avoided and something done with intent. The medical profession would not be impressed by your sentiments!
AndyMack
Guest
I agree its too soft on handing out tough punishments, but feel the intention needs to be punished not the result. I didn't see the Blair incident you mention, but can't see why these guys are called to account. Its like the League sits back waiting for a broken arm, then will jump on that one person.
AndyMack
Guest
Ah, a well earned name Shrewd Cat. Surely the issue is the intent, not the result.
Ken
Guest
I agree Shrewd Cat, punishment has to be based on the actions, not the result. Otherwise Tony Williams gets nothing while an otherwise minor, accidental high tackle could get a season if the tackled player does a knee on the way down. Just as silly in the legal system by the way, which is why this type of stuff went out of fashion centuries ago
Shrewd Cat
Guest
The problem with this is it takes the result of the act, and not the act itself as the determinate of the punishment. For instance Tony Williams horrible spear tackle didn't hurt the guy but he still got a long suspension. Actually spear tackles rarely injure the player - so does that mean you shouldn't get a big penalty for them. If a player hangs out a lazy arm and accidentally breaks a guy's jaw is that worse than a deliberate elbow to the face that does no damage? Under this reasoning attempted murder is not such a bad thing since if all my bullets missed and no-one was hurt. Also if I tap my dad on the shoulder and he has a heart attack should I get 20 years to life?
Jimbo Jones
Guest
Accidents do happen, but Im pretty sure that Crocker could have adjusted to make his contact legal and not leading with his elbows. Is there much difference between this tackle and the Frank Pritchard tackle? ''Player Pritchard's shoulder makes forceful contact with player Simmons' head,'' Kite said. ''Player Pritchard failed to act responsibly in this tackle.'' Hasn't Crocker failed to act responsibly in this tackle as well?
Nathan of Perth
Guest
"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." What a bastard!
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
I remember Dr Z, Paul Zimmerman, proposing the same thing for American football. I'd be happy with it.
Chris
Guest
No solution is perfect, but I think this idea has a great dela of merit. Should be seriously considered by the powers that be. Judicial panels should always have the discretion to look a situations such as the one mentioned by Hoy and treat them accordingly. It all comes down to intent really.
Hoy
Roar Guru
Also, accidents to happen. Say a player with the ball is running, stumbles straight into a Crocker tackle who takes his head off. Breaks his face etc. Not Crockers fault, he was to make an otherwise legal tackle, until old mate stumbled into his shoulder. Should Crocker be done under a blanket ban that you state?
Fivehole
Guest
Eye for an eye - dangerous stuff. Whilst it seems a simple solution, if the perpetrator was a star and the recipient a hack, whats to stop the hack from being requested to stay out longer than necessary so that the star is out of the game. Also vice versa, easy to get a skill limited thug to take someone out and get a handsome payment for it. Bounties are a hot topic in the NFL at the moment.
Gareth
Guest
I've always thought this would be a good idea. I've seen players come away with a broken jaw and miss 6-8 weeks from a high shot that earns a suspension of 1-2 weeks. League is pretty soft on penalties in general. The Monday before last saw Adam Blair doing his best to bring back the chicken wing and was duly penalised with no further punishment. If he'd done it with enough force to break an arm, would he have gotten 32 weeks? Very doubtful. He'd probably have gotten the number of club games between Round 4 and the ANZAC Test. Now cue the stream of comments about how tougher punishments for foul play would turn the game into netball.