As stated, I needed all bases covered - an all circumstance policy(ies)!
Health, liability, inability to work, illness, etc! They simply would not consider granting temp/perm visas unless I had these in place first. I would have thought Tangi may well have such cover given his occupation puts him at risk of injury - costly too, but even most costly if you are not covered.

The RFL are doing their best to ruin this game , with superleague being a private members club etc . Bringing civil action into the fray will finish the game as a contest.

Whatever you think of Chases tackle , how many more mistimed or otherwise tackles do we see week in week out, none done with the intention severely injure the player. Will every tackler be hauled before the courts.

Do we really want this game to go tig and pass (or mostly kick) like union.

Time to let the authorities deal with it and stop using it to score brownie points, especially if its nowt to do with your team ........................................... capiche polecats ? Its a cas , fev thing so off you go back to your bucket collections

Agreed


Like it or not, it's here and has been for a long time.


No, just the one's judged to have committed an act worthy of action through the criminal or civil court.
Do I advocate this?? Well on balance, generally no. Because you then get the 'claim' culture spreading through the whole game - at a cost the game can ill afford.
However, there are so few such claims. Only the really severe one's will result in action. Was Chase's action that severe - again, my opinion means nowt. I won't be making that judgement.
If Tangi feels there is a claim and a need to persue his losses, he may well take such action, he may not. I'll bet he takes advice though - and by advice I mean pro advice not what some bloke from Rovrum or Cas thinks!!

C'mon, like knowing the full facts matters on RLFans.

To be honest (at the risk of interfering in a "cas, fev thing" - I'm not a "polecat" though) I wouldn't generally advocate legal proceedings outside the game's disciplinary, but you can't close the door on it altogether. There have to be limits to what you accept as "part of the game" and you can't just do whatever you want and be immune to prosecution because you did it on a rugby field.

I would personally feel that Chase's tackle remains within the confines of things the game should deal with. I may, of course, feel differently if it was my jaw and my income that was affected.

I think the powers that be legal or otherwise need to take all angles into consideration when deciding which road to take this down to be fair to all concerned..

good post

If he came to our offices for advise he would be told not to bother.

To sue someone for loss of earnings etc would mean he has no insurance (which I think every club has to have), if this turns out to be the case, his claim would be against Featherstone Rovers RLFC, not Rangi Chase as Featherstone Rovers have a duty of care and not having insurance to guarantee his wage is negligence.

Another note too, the majority of the thread on the VT is full of libelous material, here's why:
1. People are outright saying Rangi Chase deliberately attacked Tangi Ropati's head in a per-determined manner, this is easy as a claimant to be proven false (and there's enough on the video to show it was accidental).

2. Did it harm the claimant in anyway? Yes, it will have an effect on his work life and it may also possibly cause distress to his pregnant girl friend with the Facebook groups calling for him to be charged etc, this would also open up an emotional distress claim.

3. Well, you don't really need to show that it was written, there's a 20+ thread full of it.



That's how I'd wager it will stay too, it has been deemed reckless by the RFL, which is what most Cas fans had been saying. He will get a ban & fine and be warned about his technique.

Is it any easier to prove that there wasn't intent than it is to prove that there was? What the video shows is a somewhat subjective matter. To me it looks like there is intent, but it could hardly be said to be conclusive either way. Hypothetically (and I doubt it will happen as I'm sure he has better things to do) would Chase have to prove that the allegations were false, or would the libellous posters have to prove that they were true? (I ask as I assume you are in the legal trade - thankfully no anatomy

)

If it's libellous to say that I believe, based on what I've seen, that there was intent in the shot, then I'm guilty too. I wouldn't categorically say there certainly was, but is it really libel to express an opinion on an incident broadcast on TV?



Not sure what effect it will have on his work life? I don't think the disciplinary panel would admit to being influenced by internet message boards. I would think groups calling for him to be charged would only affect his girlfriend if she is exceptionally thin-skinned. If they go further than that and dip into insults and so forth, you would be correct (haven't seen the groups and don't want to).



Agree. We're back in the realms (like the Hargreaves tackle on Peacock on Good Friday) of Big Daft Lads getting carried away and not taking sufficient care and responsibility for their actions. It's not as if he planned the "attack" in advance.

Not sure about the "technique" part. If he intended to smash the guy in the face (and it's hard for me to imagine what else that flick of the elbow through the contact was trying to do, but the disciplinary will form their own view on that) then his technique was spot on....

"Burden of proof" goes to the person who made the remark.



No, that's opinion. The problem is the people who are claiming that it WAS premeditated and that he did mean to do it (these are the people saying he should be charged for it)

Having the opinion that you think it was intentional is different.



You could argue that the effect this will have on peoples reactions to him would effect his work performance, this is a weak argument but one I've actually seen work far too many times.

As for the girl friend thing, again, this is something that works a lot of the time because if you were in the position of being late in a pregnancy and people were calling for the father to be thrown in jail/deported I'd assume that would get to you.



When Chase goes for a big hit his arms raise, it's just his sloppy way of shoulder charging. 99% of the time it's fine but it only takes that 1% margin of error and something like this happens where a poor bloke gets his jaw smashed.

On the legal stuff: I see, thanks.

On the quoted bit, by "charged" I erroneously assumed you meant by the RFL judiciary. Calls for him to be jailed or deported are OTT, so yes, that would no doubt be upsetting.

https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/Cal_Stran ... 72?photo=1

https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/Cal_Stran ... 72?photo=1

Quote ="Catalancs"https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/Cal_Strangward/status/192087777398095872?photo=1'" https://twitter.com/#!/cal_strangward That link is the working one He's a sad, sad individual though.

Quote ="Catalancs"https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/Cal_Strangward/status/192087777398095872?photo=1'" https://twitter.com/#!/cal_strangward That link is the working one He's a sad, sad individual though.

Ahhh the result of the "tackle" you seemed to think was fair at the time... Changed your view, or still think it was legit?

Quote ="Gronk!" Quote ="Catalancs"https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/Cal_Strangward/status/192087777398095872?photo=1'" https://twitter.com/#!/cal_strangward That link is the working one He's a sad, sad individual though.'" That's awfully rich, and possibly libellous.

Quote ="Gronk!" Quote ="Catalancs"https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/Cal_Strangward/status/192087777398095872?photo=1'" https://twitter.com/#!/cal_strangward That link is the working one He's a sad, sad individual though.'" That's awfully rich, and possibly libellous.

3 games for a "reckless" challenge, that's strange the experts on the VT were telling us we were wrong for calling it that and it was CLEARLY deliberate!

3 Matches - I bet he doesn't appeal

A psychologist I am not but, I have deduced you are the cock of the forum and No longer shall I mess with you..... good day oh wise one








Feck me what a weapon.......

It's very sad when you see a keyboard warriors like Gunk taking such satisfaction in defending such a dangerous tackle as Rangi's

You mean after Cas fans have proven to be right in saying it was reckless and not intentional.

In fact if you go back at least 2 people said 3 games and a fine....so spot on



Of course you and all the idiots on the VT know more than the RFL, no seriously of course you do.

It's turned into a witch hunt and to me, shows why RL is a minority sport - the fans.

Proven right? You really don't get it do you.

We all knew he wouldn't get more than the maximum set by the charge. That the RFL disciplinary is inconsistent at best and spineless at worst proves absolutely nothing. The argument (and I'm amazed you haven't graasped this after dozens of pages on the issue) is not the ban he would get, but the ban he should have got.

The only thing proven on all these threads is that with one or two exceptions, only Cas fans and the RFL think 3 games is a suitable punishment.

Ok, well now that he's been charged and punished you've no need to be here. Right? So off you toddle to your own forum. Thanks for your input.

Unfortunately, they've been whipped up into a frenzy and it ended up being a witch hunt.

There's been calls for everything from deportation to banned for life from the game, and people wonder why the game is a minority, well it's clearly the fans who will moan about anything, no matter what.

Bet there's a worse challenge on Friday that doesn't cause the same outrage.

If there is a worse 'tackle' on Friday, lets hope Mr Chase is on the receiving end then.

I'm sure there's an element of that Gronk.
I try and be as balanced as I can which, given allegiances in sport, can make it difficult. But nevertheless, I try and remain objective.

Myself, and quite a few others are as hacked off with the disciplinary processes as owt else. Just leaving aside which teams we support for the mo.
An illegal challenge of that magnitude that sees a player banned for only 3 matches may well be percieved as an inadquate response to causing an injury that could put a player out of the game for the rest of the season - if not longer.
Not so long ago Chase would have recieved a longer ban.
Meanwhile. at the same disciplinary hearing. Stankevich gets fined £1000 (£700 more than Chase) for calling the referee a .
The responses do not feel (to me) proportionate, not that it really matters what the chuff I think!