Surely you have to enforce the criminal law above any sport rules and regulations though ?

The penalty that Luis Suárez has been handed by the FA is their own ruling according to their own regulations, they cannot be used in leui of the criminal law if a criminal offence is committed, they may be taken into consideration by a judge but you're surely not suggesting that a judge can simply dismiss a case on the grounds that he's already suffered enough by not being allowed to play football for eight weeks (no indication of whether he will still be paid?) ?

Its the norm in the corrupt game - a game where the majority of players, professional or amateur will deliberately cheat and feign transgressions in order to have their opponents penalised and it doesn't even depend on how much money is riding on those decisions these days - you see the same cheating tactics employed in your local Sunday leagues.

And the commentators call it "The Beautiful Game".

My A[irs[/ie.

A very high profile Rangers player once went to prison for serious transgression on the football pitch.

Duncan Ferguson, for headbutting John McStay? I don't think it was punished on the field either.

From what I remember didn't Big Dunc have previous for assault which was why he ended up in prison for it?

But as evidenced by the fact that hundreds of incidents occur on national TV that would get your collar felt if you did them anywhere else, we know there's a clear understanding that despite plain crimes happening before the eyes of dozens of police officers, they are directed to (almost) never intervene, and prosecutions are (almost) never brought.

The occasional prosecution of the occasional footballer who (for example) lays out an opponent with a punch, miles after the ball has gone, are the exception that very clearly highlights the rule.

Yet here there's an exception, and the only added factor that I can see is that the alleged offence is said to have been "racially aggravated". Now, I don't think that a word or a phrase can aggravate itself; so let's say that the complete complained of phrase was "you f?g black c**t". This must mean that the shorter phrase ""you f?g c**t" constitutes the public order offence. And is then aggravated by the addition of "black". (Which obviously does, aggravate it; I'm not disputing that - and the law confirms it) - but it only aggravates it by upping the max. pen. by 1 fine Level. So yes, legally officially worse, but not so much worse.

Whereas a reckless late tackle causing grievous bodily harm (such as a compound double leg fracture), an offence under s.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861, carries up to 5 years jail. Ditto ABH, which includes "loss or breaking of teeth; temporary loss of consciousness extensive or multiple bruising; displaced / broken nose; minor fractures; cuts requiring medical treatment such as stitches" - we see those sorts of incidents fairly regularly in rugby league. Why would lesser offences lead to criminal prosecution, but manifestly far more serious offences not?

I thought maybe wrongly that Big Dunc was done for the head butt and other factors played a part in the prison sentance and not some community punishment.

Could the issue here be proving intent? I guess it might be difficult to prove that a bad tackle resulting in an injury was intentional to a sufficient degree for a criminal prosecution, whereas it's fairly difficult to deny intentionally uttering an offensive word or phrase.

Intent is a good distinction. There is a big difference between breaking someone's jaw in the process of making a tackle (albeit a foul), and attacking someone on the field after the whistle or outside of the normal course of play.

I shall have to refer to my daughters extensive library (courtesy of her last three years student loans

) of sports law but just browsing the "DIY Lawyer" style web sites it would appear that while there is no exemption from sports participants (pro or amateur) being liable for their behaviour on field, there is a "taking into account" of the circumstances so that a bad tackle resulting in physical injury which will be in contravention of the games laws won't necessarily be considered as a criminal act even if you doing the same thing to someone outside any pub on a Friday night might well be - context and consent being taken into account.

At what level does intent also become irrelevant? Manslaughter for instance can be punished with zero intent.

I must admit I've often wondered if, had certain fights in certain sports taken place outside of a pub on Friday night, what charges and punishments would have been brought about.

Which begs the question, why is it OK to fight on a sports field during a game, but not OK to fight any other time?

Which is why I used the case of a s.20 wounding, where the ingredient is recklessness. And there's a difference between intending to stiff-arm a player off the ball and intending to break his jaw.

One good rugby league example would be a player designated to cynically take out the opposition's kicker, however late the challenge may be. The intent is to clatter and hopefully ruin the game of the kicker, however long ago the ball went, and is a clear and blatant assault. Leave aside those challenges which are 'debatable' or only fractionally late, or so-called "committed", just take the case of the blatant ones. Let's say a kicker ended up getting hurt to the extent he could not continue in that game.

Let's say the offender then said to his injured opponent, "Have that, you f?g whitey c**t.

What is the argument for not prosecuting the offender for a serious physical assault, for which he could be jailed, but prosecuting him for the less serious public order charge, for which he can only be fined?

I have a friend who was imprisoned for assault which occured on a football field during a game.

A mate of mine is currently pressing charges after a lad bit him on the nose during a 6 a side football match. When he said to the copper that had it been a punch he wouldn't have taken it any further the copper said that they wouldn't have been interested had it been a punch.

So if context is not taken into account in the case of an assault. Surely rugby can only exist through the goodwill of the participents and the indifference of the police. Whether a tackle is late or not has no bearing on its criminality, it only reflects on its interpretation within the rules of the sport which are apparently irrelevent.

Interesting that intent has been raised, who can honestly say the haven't intended to hurt someone when going in for a big hit. It doesnt have to be done outside the laws of the game, but theres numerous tackles in every game where the intent is to put the recipient on his ar$e with enough force to make him thing twice about running in your direction again. Does this constitute a criminal offense?

Not usually, because the participants are taken to have consented to a reasonable degree of potential violence, within the rules of the game. But they are not taken to have consented to violent conduct which is nothing to do with the game, such as a punch off the ball. In general law (i.e. not restricted to sport, but generally) there is a limit to how much and what type of violence you can "consent" to beyond which the law will ignore the consent and prosecute regardless.

[url=http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1992/7.htmlR -v- Brown[/url on such matters incuding sadomasochism, branding buttocks and suchlike is an interesting case.

Boxers "fight" as a matter of course but clearly aren't breaking the law. They are willing participants. They're not committing affray (as might be the case in a pub brawl) because a bystander wouldnt be put in fear by their actions.

Context if everything.

Cibaman - If you look at the case cited by Ferocious Ardvark, you'll find that they were willing participants too, yet felt the whole weight of the law.

Where is the real difference?

But boxers sometimes commit more harm to an opponent than you can consent to in law?!

Although some industries seem to have standards above the law of the land. On 5 live today several public bodies were asked what would happen to an employee in their particular field under such circumstances where racial incidents had been alleged. It seems that if you are a teacher and are prosecuted in a court of law and a jury of your peers finds you not guilty, you can still be dismissed after all that, as is also the case in the prison service.

It seems the word alone of the 'offended' person is enough in these professions to render the due process of the law irrelevant.

While the offence of racial crimes should not be tolerated in any walk of life, are we now saying that our laws are not enough to prevent your conviction by other means should you prove your innocence in a court of law. It seems a charter for anyone with a grudge to be able to destroy the life of another by accusation, rather than proof.

He'd been done for assault before, more than once. The ref at the game missed it and the SFA used video evidence to ban him later for 10 or 12 matches iirc.

Personally, if I were a teacher or in a profession under similar duress and threat of summary dismissal on the word of another, then I would find myself a union with a record of defending its members properly in an employment tribunal - possibly that is the reason why teaching and other civil service unions are still quite strong ?

No, because it starts off with the winning card that it is a "lawful activity". Boxing has managed (to date) to retain a legal get out of jail card, on the grounds that boxing [iper se[/i is a lawful activity. And that legal classification makes all the difference, because even when violence is intentionally inflicted and results in actual bodily harm, wounding or serious bodily harm there is no offence committed if the injury was a foreseeable incident of a lawful activity in which the person injured was participating.

This lawful status was very much a split decision.

There is no intellectual justification making boxing legal though many have tried. It is just it has become widely accepted (though by no means unanimously) as useful to society, and professional boxing rides immune on the back of that (for now). The issue in the case of boxing is simply whether it is a "lawful activity", and in the past, the Courts have on balance held that it is.

It was never a unanimous view. In a venerable 1803 legal tome, referring to violent physical pursuits such as wrestling, prize-fighting and boxing, East said:
"[ithe latitude given to manly exercises of the nature above described, when conducted merely as diversions among friends, must not be extended to legalise prize-fighting, public boxing matches and the like, which are exhibited for the sake of lucre, and are calculated to draw together a number of idle disorderly people[/i..."

Many would, two centuries later, concede he had a point.

The court commented in Brown:
"[iThat the court is in such cases making a value-judgment, not dependant
upon any general theory of consent is exposed by the failure of any attempt
to deduce why professional boxing appears to be immune from prosecution.
For money, not recreation or personal improvement, each boxer tries to hurt
the opponent more than he is hurt himself, and aims to end the contest
prematurely by inflicting a brain injury serious enough to make the opponent
unconscious, or temporarily by impairing his central nervous system through
a blow to the midriff, or cutting his skin to a degree which would ordinarily
be well within the scope of section 20. The boxers display skill, strength and
courage, but nobody pretends that they do good to themselves or others. The
onlookers derive entertainment, but none of the physical and moral benefits
which have been seen as the fruits of engagement in manly sports. I intend no
disrespect to the valuable judgment of McInearny J. in Pallante v. Stadiums Pty.
1976 V.R. 331[an Australian decision when I say that the heroic efforts of that
learned judge to arrive at an intellectually satisfying account of the apparent immunity
of professional boxing from criminal process have convinced me that the task is
impossible. It is in my judgment best to regard this as another special situation
which for the time being stands outside the ordinary law of violence because
society chooses to tolerate it.[/i"

Slightly off point, but would a similar case to Brown be decided the same if it came before the Supreme Court today? It's almost a 20 year old ruling now and there's some pretty old fashioned views on show from the majority. It was decided largely on the basis of the protection of morals, at a time when AIDS was probably still a big talking point. It's interesting reading the differences in opinion from the majority and the dissenting judgments - can't help but think that 20 years later, that case would have gone the other way...

It comes down to whether an observer would feel personally threatened. In a boxing match the participants are ringed off from the speccies as are fans at a rugby match. The difference between those types of fights and say a pub brawl is that the latter is much more likely to spill over and result in injury to innocent bystanders.