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?!