When contradictory evidence didn’t help, especially when he marked the referee with a ‘B’ (A is top marks)
What happened?
A man was playing rugby union for his amateur club, Stourbridge, against Cheltenham. He was playing as a hooker in the front row, when he was seriously injured in a scrum.
He made a claim against the referee, Mr Wilbraham, alleging he had failed to adequately control a scrum by failing to call ‘engage’ before the two front rows engaged. It was the fourth scrum of the match – twenty minutes after the start.
The judge heard oral testimony from four individuals who were at the match, but found they were not all reliable. One he found to be ‘the most reliable and patently honest witness’, who was ‘clearly, in my view, telling the truth and reliably so’, another to be ‘unreliable in the extreme.’ He found the captain’s evidence to be ‘unreliable’.
After the match as captain of the home team, he had to fill in a referee assessment card, which he sent to the regional Society of Rugby Referees The possible markings ranged from A, which was very good, to E, which was very bad. He awarded the referee ‘B’ against ‘scrummage’.
He had said in his evidence that he had not heard the referee instruct the packs to ‘engage’, but he stated in cross examination that he had in fact heard the instruction. Furthermore, he was unable to explain why he had marked the referee with ‘B’ in relation to scrummaging on the referee assessment card.
Legal Outcome
In the 2014 court case, the judge took the view that it was plain from the different marks for the referee that a degree of thought must have been given to the markings. Also, he considered the two teams were content to continue with the match under the referee after the material scrum, there was an absence of any complaints to the referee by the captain during the match or after the match, and the marking accorded to the referee by the captain immediately after the match.
The man lost the case.
What can we learn from what happened?
This was always going to be a difficult case to win. Even given that the judge needs to consider liability ‘on the balance of probabilities’ (ie he doesn’t need to be absolutely certain), so much will depend on the witnesses accounts of what happened to prove a level of causation. Clearly, there was plenty of contradiction as far as this was concerned, and the judge sided with the referee.
Scrummaging can be very dangerous, and while the injury was not declared in this case, necks and spines can be vulnerable to the massive forces that are exerted, so referees need to be especially careful to ensure they always perform according to RFU requirements, regardless of the standard of play.
Source of Information
APIL Sports Injuries in the Courts Webinar delivered by KC Gordon Exall