Agreed not more protected from damage or likelehood of assault, but more likely to get some sort of justice. I know i must sound like an old woman banging on about this but with the nanny state we live in getting worse year by year I see problems ahead for the sport we love unless the FA gets its arse in gear. I really hope my fears never become realised!
Ah no ... there's my fantasies ruined in two easy blows. Engaged and a Man U fan! The first I can deal with but the second ... no way!! Bad week for me, i've always had a thing for Lauren Laverne as well and found out she was a Mackem the other day ... this is not good!
I didn't know who you were talking about so I've just google imaged her. The result has brightened up my day- I am in your debt sir
Actually, the legal situation is that when you step onto a football pitch, or the pitch for any other contact sport, you voluntarily submit your common law rights to the laws of the respective sport. Which basically means the police don't have the power to act in anything less serious than grevious bodily harm. Otherwise, like I said before, a fair portion of the top players would be permanently locked up... The main difference in rugby is that video replays are available to the ref instantly via the video referee. So elbowing is almost always caught and punished properly at the time of the incident, with no need for a post match review. And the fact that they use video evidence in game sets a much stronger precedent for its use after the game. But then rugby tends to be more disjointed with more stopping and starting for scrums and line outs and hence less disruption from the use of video. The FA are also quite badly hampered by FIFA's blanket moratorium on technology use in game, which sets the precedent for not using it to second guess the ref after the game.
To be honest I don't see any nanny state problems for football. FIFA's "no government interference" rule will stop the government attempting to pressure the FA into changing the rules. No one wants to be remembered as the PM who got us kicked out of the World Cup. Ultimately, FIFA or UEFA will be the one to set the precedent - the FA is too scared to act without their consent after the panning they gave our 2018 WC bid and the FFP rules targeted at the top English clubs.
Then you will enjoy this even more! This is the pink dress I was referring to. Thanks to four2three1 for the link the other day ... a gentleman and a scholar if ever i saw one!
I'd be so **** at Countdown. I'd sit there for thirty seconds ogling her, and when they asked me what word I'd come up with I'd always reply "Tits"...
I agree with much of what you said and I certainly hope that long term you proove to be right and me wrong. But as i understand it civil actions can still be taken. Furthermore in the event that it was proven under civil law that the FA was failing in its duty to adequately protect footballers according to the rule of common law, the high court could within its remit call for review. And with so much evidence available to any injured party showing countless incidents where assaults have gone unpunished, it would not be hard to build a case proving that a serious injury was bound to happen sooner or later and that the FA's negligence contributed to it. Add to that the irrefutable evidence that the FA has not taken any steps to correct the loopholes in its own systems despite numerous warning signs I think that the FA would be very fortunate to avoid serious censure. Under those circumstances I hate to think what might happen!
I'm watching countdown on Channel 4 +1 even though I just watched it in normal time. Is that wrong? ... or just sad?
Civil actions can still be taken, but civil law is very different from criminal law, i.e. common law. In order for McCarthy to claim against Rooney in a civil case, he would have to show that he suffered some harm, and that the harm caused him some distress or loss. Taking a bruise to the cheek in a football match is unlikely to be construed as significant harm, even in modern Britain. I'd have more chance of claiming against a bloke who bumped into me on the street! Given that Haaland didn't even manage to successfully sue Keane for ending his career, I can't ever see a big civil case occurring for an elbow that didn't even cause an injury. I also doubt the High Court will call for a review unless a footballer has been shown to have carried out a serious premeditated attack and not been punished. Given that they did nothing when Keane assaulted Haaland and admitted it was premeditated, I can't really see them ever intervening for anything like this. The FA system has had loopholes for at least 100 years, the fact remains that the courts won't get involved unless they think it's substantially in the public interest. And lets's face it, a few overpaid footballers acting childish is hardly going to compare to the real issues facing the courts in this country!
