When the referee’s primary duty to protect the players was breached
What happened?
During a male, adult amateur rugby union match in Wales, in the thirteenth minute, a prop forward had left the field with an injury. There was no suitable prop forward replacement, so he was replaced by a flanker.
The flanker was not suitably experienced in scrummaging. The referee asked the players if they wished to continue using ‘uncontested’ scrums, a much safer alternative when there are inexperienced players, but they refused the offer and chose to continue contesting the scrum.
The rules of the game state that under these circumstances a referee must impose the decision to play uncontested scrums, but he failed to do this.
The majority of the match was played with contested scrums on a wet, muddy pitch, so player fatigue will have contributed to the quality of the scrummaging. In what would have been the last play of the match, the scrum collapsed and a player was seriously injured, suffering incomplete tetraplegia (a spinal cord injury that partially affects the ability to move and feel in all four limbs).
It was argued that it was the referee’s previous decision that caused the scrum to collapse, and a claim was made.
Legal Outcome
The standard of care expected of the referee, as is the case for players, is determined on all the circumstances and nature of the game. A referee of a fast moving game cannot reasonably be expected to avoid errors of judgement, oversights or lapses. Given that, the threshold of liability must be high.
In this particular case, however, the crucial actions occurred not when the injury actually happened or during a passage of play, but during a pause in the game. The referee gave the players the option of uncontested scrums, and he made no enquiries of the flanker as to whether he was suitably trained and experienced.
The judge said, ‘I am satisfied that the flanker’s lack of technique and experience as a prop was a significant contributory cause of the unsatisfactory nature of set scrummages.
The court held that the standard of care threshold had been met and crossed and the referee was found to be liable, with the Welsh Rugby Union vicariously liable for his actions, given he was their employee.
What can we learn from what happened?
A key fact that determined the referee’s liability here was the referee had the opportunity to take a balanced and considered decision in line with the official laws of the game but failed to follow those relevant laws. The law is sympathetic to situations when in the heat of the moment playing sport, mistakes are made, but this was a very black and white error when the referee did not follow the rules. The primary duty of the referee is to protect the players, and he failed in his duty.
Rather ironically, the referee was a practising solicitor, specialising in personal injury!
Source of Information
International Sports Law Blog
Journal Personal Injury Lawyers