Today's Yorkshire Post

Players get injured every week. Players get injured as the result of being elbowed every month. If we set a precedent with this case it won't just be used for players with career threatening injuries. Who will be entrusted with deciding that you can sue for this injury but not for that one? It will open the floodgates for clubs to sue for any injury.

 

RE: you've made some pretty big and erroneous assumptions....

Who will restrict such cases to career threatening injuries?

 

Sarcasm is fair enough when we're talking about cocks, but I think when we're having a serious discussion I try to put a valid point forward.

 

^ What he said. nt

 

you've made exactly the point that doesn't sit well with me. Deliberate. Are we all sure? Our hearts say yes, but my head isn't 100%, certainly not beyond reasonable doubte that is for sure.

 

I'm sure you know that there is a significant difference between clashes caused by 'leverage' and those that are aimed to injure. 99% of the time even those that are aimed to injure don't cause much more then a cut or bruising, players treated on the sideline and back on the pitch. If, as in this case, that intent causes an injury that is far more serious, legal action should be welcomed, because it might stop the less able footballers like Morgan from trying in the first place.

Apparently, you're happier with the 'no consequences' ruling that has been set by the FA. Even if FIFA do overule it, what actions do you think they will take for something like GBH or assault? 3 match ban, 2 weeks wages, £5k fine for the club. The football authorities would be out of their depth in this case.

 

My head and heart say yes. He deliberately elbowed his opposite player.

I'd categorically state that he didn't mean to cause so much damage, but tough ****.

 

No.

</p>

Life and career threatening injuries as a result of a clearly intentional assault are extremely rare. Any club taking legal action for anything less would only have itself to blame when it got booted out of court and landed with the costs. I think they know that.</p>

 

well then I offer my apologies.

You ****.

 

RE: you've made some pretty big and erroneous assumptions....

The only similar incident that I can recall was when a Brentford player - Gary Blissett - was acquited of GBH on a Torquay player (sorry can't remember his name) but I don't know if legal action was taken by the club. It must have been in the early 90s.

These incidents are few and far between and I couldn't see a club taking legal action unless a similar incident occurs. Everyone accepts injuries are an unfortunate consequence of the game but this particular injury justifies legal action IMHO.

 

It's the big 'Sheffield United' factor that's comes into play here ....

I don't for one second that anyone is celebrating the fact that Lawyers, Insurance companies etc etc are going to get involved and start to pick off huge sums of money here ....

I'd say more likely that the thing that most Barnsley fans are happy about is that someone (be it Cryne or Hume or both) are actually going to stand up to and challenge the arrogant, gutless, selfish and 'inhumain' (if that's a word) behavoir of those that reisde over at Bramhall Lane.

Just from an 'human being' perspective their behaviour straight after the incident and then in the weeks and months after was an absolute disgrace. They showed a total lack of respect for anything connected with Barnsley Football Club and more importantly Ian Hume. You only have to listen to Blackwell and his right-hand man's interviews about the incident to understand that ......

Make no mistake ..... had the boot been on the other foot and 'Big Daz' had brought '4 million man' Beattie's career to an abrupt end then the squeeling and bleeting from Bramhall Lane would have been deafening !!

 

Has "deliberate assult" been established yet? nt

 

I don't think you can establish it without going to court. I think that's the point.

 

and how many players deliberately elbow another player everyweek. OK not with the same results, but I just can't help thinking that if this goes ahead, and it is succesful, what will the game become?

 

We have a fundamental disagreement here. I don't think Morgan deliberately tried to injure Hume. I think he was reckless and I think that a challenge like that should be dealt severely by Football's governing bodies, but I do not believe it should be taken in to the civil courts.

Can we also take it as read that I believe that Hume has got a case should his career be affected in the long term, I'm talking about the club taking legal proceedings not the player.

 

It's about the consequences of your actions not the potential consequences.

You cannot be found guilty of murder if you haven't killed anyone.

 

RE: No.

If it was clearly intentional assault then everyone would agree that it was intentional assault. I saw a reckless challenge.

 

Two things.

</p>

Reckless endangerment amounts to the same thing in the eyes of the law.</p>

And how can you think that Hume has a case should his career be affected long term if you don't think Morgan intended to hurt him?</p>

 

RE: Two things.

Whether Morgan intended to hurt him or not the fact remains that he did hurt him. As such then I believe Hume has a case.

*edit* in much the same way as a driver running someone down doesn't mean to hurt that person but they are at fault.

 

How bizarre. nt