In a landmark judgment in the Western Cape High Court recently a former school rugby player won his case against an opposing player who injured him so severely during a scrum that left him with a broken neck. The case is an eye opener to those who may go beyond what the laws that allow aggression as a part of the game.

In a judgment delivered by the High court a player (Hooker) was held responsible for neck injuries caused to the opposing hooker in what is described as an unaccepted and dangerous maneuver in the scrum. The injury occurred during a high schools match in 2005 and after case that was filed round 2008 and the judgment was delivered in May 2011.

The ruling could serve as a legal precedent for civil claims against players of any sport found to have deliberately injured a player during a game. The incident occurred in 2005 and Ryand Hattingh, now 25, was in High School when he injured his neck in a school rugby match. He was a hooker for the team and claimed that his neck fracture was as a result of a deliberate action by the opposing team’s hooker.
The judgment in the case revolved on the observation following the evidence that was led.

It was concluded that the hooker Roux encouraged his team members to perform an “illegal and dangerous tactic coded “jack-knife”, which meant his head went into the wrong gap in the scrum and collapsed on Hattingh’s neck. This action was described in expert evidence as being chaotic at the schoolboy game.

In his judgment, Judge Burton Fourie ruled that the actions of Alex Roux, then a Stellenbosch High School hooker, were an “unlawful and extremely dangerous maneuvers”. Citing evidence from rugby experts, he said it was clear from his findings that Roux’s actions had been “deliberate and intentional”.

The judgment stated that : “This conduct by Alex was not only forbidden by the laws of the game, but constituted such a serious transgression, not normally associated with the game of rugby, that it would not reasonably have been expected to occur in a rugby game.”

This exercise that was being executed, “illegal and extremely dangerous and is used in an effort to dominate the opposing team by disrupting their scrum. The placing of his head in the wrong channel of the scrum was, judged on evidence from the court, a planned move, deliberately executed, and well knowing that injury was a result thereof”.

The judge concluded that though rugby was a high-speed contact sport, there would always be risk of injury. Players could expect to be injured, but this did not mean players could deliberately injure another player.

“The injured player should not, by virtue of the game, be regarded as having consented to the risk of being injured as a result of serious aggressions, which are not normally associated with the game of rugby.” The school authorities of the offending player too were originally cited but were subsequently taken off as they reached an agreement with the complaining party.

The South African Rugby Union chief executive said it was clear from the verdict that the injury was caused by actions outside rugby laws. This case must just make everyone more aware of how important it is to play within the rules and it is a message to those who do that little extra to be aggressive more than the laws permit.

In this case it was the player that was charged wand while the referee was spared and the coach was not considered a party as he had never trained players to do what was done. The landmark judgment in the Western Cape High Court may serve as a precedent for sports players deliberately injured during games.

One has to be very careful as there is a possibility where a referee to can be charged if actions of players that are illegal are not detected. “In an instance where it can be shown that the rules of the game were not being followed, liability would then move from the player to the referee the coach as well as those who are involved employing the players as well as match officials .

Why this is important is because in the local scene in recent times there have been many instances where there has been legal action taken or there have been express threats that have been made. The win mentality very often takes the employment of tactics that go beyond what is permitted.

It must be understood that one may sustain injuries due to action that are forbidden by the laws of the game but can happen in the normal course of play. We know that laws do not allow tackling a player after the ball has been passed or when a tackle is made while being offside.

These are penalized as it is not allowed by the laws but happen in the normal course of play. But areas what is bad is the aggression that is forced that are against the laws of the game and are also not in the normal course of the game. Examples can be blows by fist, kicking on the head of a player on ground or even deliberate collapsing. This is where caution is required and match officials should not hesitate to punish and use the red without hesitation.

* Vimal Perera is a former Rugby Referee, coach and Accredited Referees Evaluator IRB