John Smit
Update on John Smit
John Smit
By Annie December 12 2005
Basically, dear reader, things have gone very pear-shaped for the South African captain. Biarritz, Jerome Thions club side, were understandably not very happy with losing one of their most influential players at such an important time of the season. And so what did they do?
John Smit
Basically, dear reader, things have gone very pear-shaped for the South African captain. Biarritz, Jerome Thions club side, were understandably not very happy with losing one of their most influential players at such an important time of the season. And so what did they do?
Yip, you have guessed correctly, they have threatened to "take legal action" against Smit.
This news has disturbed me greatly. I have watched the incident a number of times now, and although there is no doubting that it was a bad challenge by Smit, and even though it resulted in a shocking injury for Thion, I refuse to believe it was intentional. I realise that lots of horrible things are done by people who in no way set out to do harm to another person, but I truely am a great believer in the age old saying, "what happens on the pitch stays on the pitch."
The other side of the coin, if we are to go down the route of litigation, is just where do we stop? Was the Smit incident - a non-intentional, clumsy challenge that caused a serious injury - worse than the the Julian White punch up for Leicester Tigers a few weeks ago? You could argue that White's dustup was worse, he had his man pinned to the ground and punched him four or five times. Luckily the other player involved was uninjured, but does that make any less serious an incident?
The IRB have made it clear in the past that rugby is a physical contact sport which often causes injuries.
Writing in an article for iol.co.za, Brandon Foot has today stated that, "The defence of “consent” only extends to injuries that occur within the normal course of the game. Even if the injury occurred as a result of a contravention of the laws (as in Smit's case), but was foreseeable in the normal course of a game, the defence will still succeed. But if an injury is caused by a deliberate intention to injure someone or a gross contravention of the rules, then there is the possibility of successfully suing. This type of intention is not uncommon in sport.
"Roy Keane, who recently quit as captain of Manchester United, admitted in his biography that he deliberately targeted Alfe Inge Haaland of Manchester City. In my view, Thion (or his club) will not be able to successfully sue Smit. “Le coq sportif” had surely consented to the risk of injury and Smit's conduct did not (I think) grossly exceed the norm in this physical and risky sport."
I do hope he is correct about this. I am all for getting rid of foul play and thugs in our game, but I sincerly believe that going to court is going to change the game of rugby as we know and love it, and it won't be for the better. Thion, meanwhile, returned to training with his club Biarritz just two weeks after the incident.
Brandon Foot is an attorney specialising in sports law and the past President of the Northerns Cricket Union.
This news has disturbed me greatly. I have watched the incident a number of times now, and although there is no doubting that it was a bad challenge by Smit, and even though it resulted in a shocking injury for Thion, I refuse to believe it was intentional. I realise that lots of horrible things are done by people who in no way set out to do harm to another person, but I truely am a great believer in the age old saying, "what happens on the pitch stays on the pitch."
The other side of the coin, if we are to go down the route of litigation, is just where do we stop? Was the Smit incident - a non-intentional, clumsy challenge that caused a serious injury - worse than the the Julian White punch up for Leicester Tigers a few weeks ago? You could argue that White's dustup was worse, he had his man pinned to the ground and punched him four or five times. Luckily the other player involved was uninjured, but does that make any less serious an incident?
The IRB have made it clear in the past that rugby is a physical contact sport which often causes injuries.
Writing in an article for iol.co.za, Brandon Foot has today stated that, "The defence of “consent” only extends to injuries that occur within the normal course of the game. Even if the injury occurred as a result of a contravention of the laws (as in Smit's case), but was foreseeable in the normal course of a game, the defence will still succeed. But if an injury is caused by a deliberate intention to injure someone or a gross contravention of the rules, then there is the possibility of successfully suing. This type of intention is not uncommon in sport.
"Roy Keane, who recently quit as captain of Manchester United, admitted in his biography that he deliberately targeted Alfe Inge Haaland of Manchester City. In my view, Thion (or his club) will not be able to successfully sue Smit. “Le coq sportif” had surely consented to the risk of injury and Smit's conduct did not (I think) grossly exceed the norm in this physical and risky sport."
I do hope he is correct about this. I am all for getting rid of foul play and thugs in our game, but I sincerly believe that going to court is going to change the game of rugby as we know and love it, and it won't be for the better. Thion, meanwhile, returned to training with his club Biarritz just two weeks after the incident.
Brandon Foot is an attorney specialising in sports law and the past President of the Northerns Cricket Union.
Bookmark or share this story with:
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
Stumbleupon
More Pertemps Bees headlines
Pertemps Bees latest threads
Pertemps Bees Poll
