http://www.nottinghampost.com/Notti...r-Blackstock/story-20707396-detail/story.html What do people make of this? DTLW
There has always been an unwritten understanding that you accept the risks involved in playing football, even though some things could be classed as a crime (Dani's attack on Fonte). However, there may be occasions when a line has been crossed. Depends how the injury was caused (was it deliberate, done in temper?) and was Dexter left out of pocket.
For the record and the benefit of the thread, this is the tackle by Seyi Olofinjana that Dexter Blackstock is suing him for: [video=youtube;jDmeivtc6kI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDmeivtc6kI[/video]
Very difficult situation this. These things are very difficult to prove, even though there is video evidence, as it is in a game situation, and hence players have consented to the risk at hand. "challenging (him) in a way that caused a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury". For me, this is a concerning point of law to raise in the courts, and the judge will be wary of setting a precedent for future cases. What tackle doesn't 'have a reasonable risk of injury'? Sometimes, these situations even arise when the ball is won fairly. Just as a further point, Olofinjana, did seem very apologetic for what happened. It is a difficult one, and I doubt he will win his case (Blackstock).
I assume to be negligent there would first have to be a duty of care? Some of the lawyers on here will know better than me. I assumed footballers(/clubs) would have some sort of insurance to protect future earnings, I don't know for certain though. There's been (or was) a semi-similar discussion in the refereeing universe about liability, something along the lines of "is the ref responsible if a player suffers a serious injury?". You might have heard the question asked DTLW/Tom. On the face of it clearly no, but it gets a bit more complicated than that really.
The law is something about accepting there's no liability for injuries that come about as a result of properly conducted sport, otherwise you'd get boxers suing other boxers for breaking noses all the time. This normally applies to injuries in football too - tackles are a part of the properly conducted sport, so you consent to those by playing, yet obviously if a player jumped on another player and started pummeling him then that wouldn't be part of the sport. You can argue that fouls aren't technically the sport being conducted properly, but as far as I remember it's all part of the course of play so as long as Olofinjana wasn't trying to injure Blackstock he'll probably be fine - there are cases where some dodgy high tackles have broken bones and courts won't prosecute because it's all part of the sport, especially on the professional level they'd probably just be more willing to keep away and let the FA deal with it. It could be interesting to see where they go with this, but it would have been very interesting if, say, Pedro Mendes had taken action against Ben Thatcher a few years ago. That may all be wrong, it's been a few years but yeah, there are definitely cases where leg breakers have happened and the courts have refused to punish anyone.
Injured at work and it wasn't your fault? The Youtube video is not playing for me, so I can't comment on the tackle. In general terms you go into football in the full knowledge that there is a risk of injury, but just because you cross that white line it does not mean the laws of the land don't apply. In plenty of contact sports (esp Rugby) you feel the line between the sport and our criminal law are very blurred. Players can use the sports as an almost mini fight club. This may say more about me, but i'm happy to admit on a few occasions i've put in tackles with no interest in the ball and the full intention to hurt my opponent. Of course the intention has not been to break legs or cause serious injury, but it was to give them a bruise and a little pain. I'm sure very few players go into tackles hoping to seriously injury there opponent, but if they do, do you have to prove a level of intent? The extent of an injury caused can be because of many variables. (point of impact, momentum of both players, previous injury weak spot). This is a difficult area to judge on EDIT: Posted before I read Dan QCs explanation
The intended harm has to be beyond what is consented to (or what a reasonable person consents to) in playing the sport. If your intent is merely to tackle a little harder than is strictly necessary and your actions are reasonable given that intent I think most reasonable people would agree that's part of the game. If you just walk up to a player who isn't anywhere near the action and kick him in the face as hard as you can, I think most reasonable people would agree that's not football, and you shouldn't expect that to happen on a football pitch anymore than you should expect that to happen on a sidewalk. Thus, that's not a touching you consent to when you play football. I don't think Blackstock has anything close to a case, as whether that was even a rash or intentional challenge is debatable. Someone accidentally catching you at the wrong moment and injuring you is risk of the game.
Blackstock is suing for lost bonuses over the 15 months lay off...presumably the bonuses would possibly amount to the 50K he is after. However, an important part of his case is the right to subsequently claim for further damages should he have to retire early. I suppose he is concerned that he may find it hard to get another club. His losses however are only important if the court find against the defendant.
Doesn't look to be much more than a badly timed poke at the ball. He didn't have weight behind it. I agree the end result looks horrible but I'd be astounded if anything came of that. Olofinjana's body language afterwards also looks to me like surprise. Don't misunderstand me, I'm very sorry for Blackstock but I do wonder who's advising him to pursue this and what's in it for them. I bet Kevin Nolan's worried - every time he "tackles" he's trying to hurt someone. Vin
Doesn't look bad, but do feel sorry if it turns out to be career ending or at least curtailing. It is opening a can of worms though...at the very least insurance costs for football clubs could rise (he is also suing Cardiff).
Methinks Dexter has been a little profligate with his paychecks to need to pursue this. I can't recall any player v player cases but Dean Ashton definitely sued the FA after SWP ended his career.
Just saw the tackle and I was expecting the Cardiff player to have been sliding out of control or hit Blackstock high up the leg directly into the knee. All it looks like is that Dexter lost slight control of the ball and elongated his leg, it got stuck in the turf and the Cardiff players tackle came in at the worst possible moment. If it had been done with any serious force and higher up the leg there would have been a chance it would have been broken. I'm pretty surprised at this claim and can't see a case to answer. Like Hobovril says, sounds like Dexter is in need of some money.
Not sure if anyone else mentioned, but those saying they don't recall a player v player case may have forgotten Paul Elliott suing Dean Saunders. I can't remember the outcome.
I imagine for the last ten years or so Dexter Blackstock has been earning on average 15,000 a week. If you crunch the numbers, he's probably made over 7 million, minus tax. And he wants more money? All this for being a pretty average footballer. No sympathy here I'm afraid.
