Calum Clark "incident" with Rob Hawkins - Arm Break

[Teh Mite]

Precisely.

A bit like all the people who are all upset that a footballer has had a heart attack, but walked straight past a BHF charity desk last time they went on a spending spree in town centre.

 

[dullonien]

I think we can all accept that rugby is a physical game and injury is gonna happen now and again. Most will probably accept that due to the physical nature of the game, this can sometimes overflow into a bit of a punch-up. What I cannot understand, or accept is when off the ball incidents occur with little to no provocation. Deliberate acts of malice intended to severely injure another person should not be tolerated in any way, and my reasoning behind wanting police action is simply because I don't think a ban from playing rugby is enough of a punishment when there are other people getting jail-time for doing similar things.

There is a deliberate attempt to injure when someone sticks a finger in another person's eye, stamps on a player's head or breaks someone's arm. This is very different from throwing a punch which can maybe result in a broken jaw, but not intended to do so. Luckily there hasn't been too many incidents of players being seriously harmed due to foul play, but one look at Gavin Quinelle losing his sight in one eye shows how it can severely impact someone's life.

I'm not saying that Clark is definitely guilty, it's difficult to tell from a poor quality youtube video, but the citing board will have much, much better quality video to look at and probably multiple camera angles. If they find him guilty then imo the police should be then involved. I'm sure most won't agree.

 

[racingmetrofan]

I don't agree that it should be kept within rugby. This is a pretty serious act of foul play, something which could hold a prison sentence off the field. I would personally like to see things like this, along with deliberate gouging etc. referred to the police as well. Being banned from playing rugby just isn't enough sometimes.

I think it should only be reffered to the police if the player injured wants it to be. Ultimately if Hawkins doesn't think it is worth a criminal conviction, and isn't the same as if someone did it to him in a bar, then what's the point in Clark being taken to court? Because, essentially, both the attacker and the victim would believe that the attacker is not guilty in a 'criminal' sense...

 

[Saintjay]

The law is rarely clearly defined or there wouldn't be a need for lawyers (like Luimneach18). Where does the law state that consent can only be given if related to activities within the rules of the game.

I remember reading a number of cases where it was argued that a person consents activities common within the culture of the sport (or something along those lines). What you can't consent to is (I don't know what the technical term in England is) something along the lines of actual bodily harm (and a black eye isn't included in that).

I don't know English Criminal law, it's been a few years at this stage. All I can think of is R v. Billinghurst. Don't even know what happened in that. Some rugby player got done for assault I think.

I think it is from that case I got the idea that it has to be within the rules of the game, part of the sport etc. I looked it up and he was found guilty of assault 11 to 1. The defence argued that punching was part of the game and they even brought in an international player to say that it was.

The judge directed the jury that rugby was a game of physical contact necessarily involving the use of force and that players are deemed to consent to force "of a kind which could reasonably be expected to happen during a game." He went on to direct them that a rugby player has no unlimited licence to use force and that "there must obviously be cases which cross the line of that to which a player is deemed to consent." A distinction which the jury might regard as decisive was that between force used in the course of play and force used outside the course of play.

So is punching a player part of the sport and used in the course of play or part of the game. Clearly the judge and jury did not see it that way. A case in 2004 said a late tackle in the heat of the moment was ok as it was in the course of play though.

 

[dullonien]

I think it should only be reffered to the police if the player injured wants it to be. Ultimately if Hawkins doesn't think it is worth a criminal conviction, and isn't the same as if someone did it to him in a bar, then what's the point in Clark being taken to court? Because, essentially, both the attacker and the victim would believe that the attacker is not guilty in a 'criminal' sense...

Sounds fair.

 

[Teh Mite]

Tyburn could always be reopened. Blackett is "affectionately" known as the hanging judge...

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Precisely.

A bit like all the people who are all upset that a footballer has had a heart attack, but walked straight past a BHF charity desk last time they went on a spending spree in town centre.

Really.

To be fair it's not suprising that you said that.

 

[Teh Mite]

Read the whole sentence, keep it in context, band wagons etc. You know better then that.

 

[gingergenius]

Clark's been suspended by Saints.

In other words, he's guilty as hell and they're trying damage limitation on his ban. Should be 52 weeks for that kind of behaviour, no place for it in rugby.

 

[j'nuh]

Is there any sort of possibility, you, just to consider the slim chance, that Wood rolling off Hawkins back and landing on his arm maybe just possibly could have been the primary cause of any injury??

If you push a guy into the street and a car hits him, should we lock up the driver?

Whether Clark was intentionally trying to break Hawkins arm doesn't really matter imo, the negligence alone deserves a long ban.

 

[Teh Mite]

Wasnt attempting to redirect blame or excuse anything, merely looking as it without pointing fingers or talking in extremes. Wreckless actions leading to a horrible accident caused it.

 

[RedWhite&Green]

Any ban is defined in time, not number of matches. Hense England players only get long bans just before the season ends (e.g. Manu Tuilagi).

Does anybody have a link to this incident, I still ain't got a frigging clue what people are talking about.

how convenient!

 

[SelimNiai]

how convenient!

Selective reading

 

[HowieLO6]

Calum Clark suspended indefinitely

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/17487713

If this was, indeed, done on purpose I'd very much like to see the RFU throw the book at him.

If you go to the Daily Mail, you can see the video of the incident.

Doesn't look accidental to me.

EDIT: Forgot it was in the LV cup and not the prem. My bad.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

EDIT: Forgot it was in the LV cup and not the prem. My bad.

No worries, I just merged the threads.

 

[HowieLO6]

Cheers.

Actually makes my stomach churn, watching this. Granted, i'm not one with an iron gut, but still.

Having a chat with a Saints-supporting friend and he's very much of the opinion that the club ban equates to an acknowledgement of guilt and he should thus be shown the door. Not ure if I agree with that, as I wouldnt jetison those who gouge, although i suppose theres a difference between fingers around the eyes & bending an arm, as opposed to jamming your thumbs in and snapping the arm back.

 

[Saintjay]

how convenient!

Yeah or prehaps he did not see the incident or could not view the video, maybe he was just busy. Some people do have lives outside of rugby however unconvenient that is.

 

[dullonien]

Yeah or prehaps he did not see the incident or could not view the video, maybe he was just busy. Some people do have lives outside of rugby however unconvenient that is.

He was viewing the thread on his phone = no video.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Cheers.

Actually makes my stomach churn, watching this. Granted, i'm not one with an iron gut, but still.

Having a chat with a Saints-supporting friend and he's very much of the opinion that the club ban equates to an acknowledgement of guilt and he should thus be shown the door. Not ure if I agree with that, as I wouldnt jetison those who gouge, although i suppose theres a difference between fingers around the eyes & bending an arm, as opposed to jamming your thumbs in and snapping the arm back.

Also a bit of damage limitation - when Cueto got banned for "making contact with the eyes", that he'd already been banned by Sale took a bit of time off of his ban handed down from the citing people.

 

[Teh Mite]

Yeah or prehaps he did not see the incident or could not view the video, maybe he was just busy. Some people do have lives outside of rugby however unconvenient that is.

Don't feed the troll