Should On-Field Violence Evade the Law?

I have chosen to write about a topic that is of interest to me personally, and in the hope that you, our reader, will give your opinion on the matter too.

There is a principle in soccer that the referee, in his/her role as both umpire and representative of a country’s football association, is the final adjudicator on matters that occur on the field of play. In particular, if player ‘A’ tackles or fouls player ‘B’ in a manner that is deemed reckless, dangerous or even violent, a referee may choose to award a ‘free-kick’ whilst also issuing player A with a yellow card (an official warning) or a red card (whereby the offending player is required to leave the field of play and often receives a subsequent ban). If the referee does not see and deal with the incident, the governing body can impose a punishment retrospectively.

Before you continue reading, please take a moment to view the following clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC8MB64Ha1M

For those who lack the software required to view the video, it shows a sequence of reckless and violent incidents in soccer matches, including players ‘head-butting’ opposing players as well as ‘elbowing’ them and performing other dangerous tackles and acts of violence.

Most, if not all, of these acts led to subsequent penal actions by the relevant football association / governing body. However these incidents, some of which would ordinarily amount to common GBH (grievous bodily harm) and ABH (actual bodily harm) outside the sporting venue, did not involve ensuing legal action. It should be noted that one offending player in the clip later admitted to intentionally trying to hurt the recipient of his assault.

I pose the question – is it right that these actions tend to fall outside the scope of civil and criminal law?

Some scholars argue that the exclusion of the law in incidents relating to sport is justified on the basis that the judiciary lack the relevant expertise, skill and knowledge of sport required to give a sound and reasoned judgment. However, there are those that would propose that given the obscene and even unsporting nature of some of these incidents, perhaps the matter should be viewed differently. A judge would be the appropriate arbiter of incidents that clearly do not form a common part of the sport in question.

Whilst this may be the case, it is also worth noting that one danger of allowing such matters to form a basis of legal action is that it might open the ‘floodgates’ to an abundance of litigation. This is something that the law has been very wary of and some would argue that the application of the ‘floodgates’ argument here would be justified.

This article would not normally extend to sports such as boxing, ultimate fighting and wrestling in which the rules permit the infliction of harm between participants (who are also deemed to consent to this harm). However, as seen in the video above, some incidents occur that form NO part of the sport whatsoever. Is it appropriate that just because the incident in question has occurred during a sporting event, the jurisdiction for such ‘rash’ challenges should lie with the sport’s governing body?

English law has suggested that incidents could be considered ‘criminal’. In the 2004 case of R v Barnes, a case concerning an indecent tackle during a soccer match, the Court indicated that it is relevant to assess whether the incident is ‘legitimate’ within the sport, and gave examples of how to determine this, such as the location of the ball during the tackle in question. However, legal authority on the matter remains unclear and relatively lacking.

In the US it was hoped that the case of Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals would shed further light on the extent to which actions on the field could lead to off-field liability in law. In this NFL case, the offending player struck Hackbart on the back of the head with a forearm blow. The football itself was located on another part of the field and civil proceedings were brought in respect of the claimant’s injured neck. The eventual outcome was that a retrial was called for.

The US case of Nabozny v. Barnhill showed that liability in tort could arise where there has been a reckless disregard for the safety of others. However, the case arose from a reckless tackle in a soccer match between two amateur high school teams. The authority of this case in the professional realm is therefore questionable.

Thus, a clear-cut answer is eagerly anticipated as to when, if at all, judicial intervention in sport can occur with regard to on-field incidents of violence and recklessness.