Re: That challenge : Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:32 am  

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.

Re: That challenge : Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:03 pm  

Rotherham Fev Fan wrote:

It doesn't matter whether you think it was fair or not. Others will decide guilt, not you or I.

You can't possibly know whether there will be any civil action. Have you spoken with Tangi yesterday or this morning??

Daft post.

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

Re: That challenge : Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:13 pm  

forrard wrote:

The RFL are doing their best to ruin this game , with superleague being a private members club etc .

Agreed

forrard wrote:

Bringing civil action into the fray will finish the game as a contest.

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

forrard wrote:

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.

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!!

Re: That challenge : Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:28 pm  

Fully wrote:

Of course, Matt. Because you were patently there on that day. Thought not.

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

Re: That challenge : Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:30 pm  

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.

Re: That challenge : Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:33 pm  

El Diablo wrote:

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..

Re: That challenge : Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:43 pm  

El Diablo wrote:

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.

good post

Re: That challenge : Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:51 pm  

Rotherham Fev Fan wrote:

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!!

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.

I would personally feel that Chase's tackle remains within the confines of things the game should deal with.

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.

Re: That challenge : Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:12 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

If
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).

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?

Gronk! wrote:

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.

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).

Gronk! wrote:

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.

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....

Re: That challenge : Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:18 pm  

El Diablo wrote:

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 )

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

El Diablo wrote:

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?

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.

El Diablo wrote:

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).

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.

El Diablo wrote:

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....

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.