ishu.aartu
Ashish Mohan
The new season kicked off with the coaches gathering to relive the highs and lows of the previous season and to decide on who would coach which team, when and how weigh-in will take place, and what nights and on what fields, teams would practice on. The local union representative was introduced to share video and a print copy (for all coaches) of the Rugby Smart document. Discussion techniques associated with tackling, scrimmaging was emphasized for injury prevention. The coaches left the clubrooms excited about the up-coming season.
As the season proceeded, John the 5th grade coach was very happy with the progress shown by his boys. The team had built an impression. John was a tough coach and his players and their parents respected that tough discipline as a testimony to John’s team’s successes over a 12-year period. John was a provincial representative player in his day and was known for mental toughness and rugged play, especially hard hitting tackles that put fear in the minds of opposing players.
One of John’s young loose-forwards, William Hosking (fictitious) was showing the same spirit and toughness. John’s coaching colleagues and friends had spotted this talent, and William seemed destined to high levels of representative rugby and possible financial reward. William had the speed, strength and size, and an uncanny knack of always being in the right position on offensive as well as defense. He was a player feared by opposing teams, who learned that a hard tackle from young Hosking meant pain and a general discomfort for the rest of the game. William had discovered that driving home a tackle beyond the opposing players’ body position resulted in devastating results for the person being tackled. William liked the results and was also receiving great accolades from his coach, his team-mates and his other friends who would send a loud cry of “aahhh” from the side line every time William nailed an opposing player.
Now the story takes a turn here and splits into two scenarios.
Scenario one:
During the opening moments of a season ending game, William is lined up behind and outside of his inside centre to put extra pressure on the strong opposing centre. He and his coach had discussed this policy before the game. As the play from the scrum evolves the opposing team wins the ball and start feeding it out to the back line. John has lined up behind his line a few metres and sprints forward anticipating the moment the ball will reach the player he is marking. Just as the ball reaches that player John drops his head and shoulder and drives forward into his opposing players’ chest with his shoulder, driving a massive force to a point a metre behind the player. The impact is immediately heard around the ground and catches even the “aaahhh!!” chorus by surprise. The ball flies loose and there is a half-hearted scramble by a few players not yet shocked by this tackle….
Scenario two:
John sprints forward toward the anticipated tackle. He drops his head and shoulders toward the opposing player and aims beyond the hips. The opposing player has been well coached and sees the situation coming…. his coach has scouted John’s team and has learned that early in the game John will encourage William to hit hard on the opposing teams back line, especially good players, trying to knock their courage off the field. The opposing coach and his centre have decided to counter and focus on William’s tactic. The result is a well-placed fending hand and force toward the ground as the ball is tossed beyond William’s target.
The fend results in William head being forced to the ground… . There is no “aahhh!!” this time as William’s body goes limp.
What is the duty of care a coach owes to his athletes?
By definition, a coach must take all practical steps to ensure that his player(s) are warned, instructed, protected and corrected to ensure they are safe. As such, in this case, John is expected
1. To follow the RugbySmart Model; and
2. To use common-sense as defined by his ‘civil’ society.
Applying the RugbySmart model (2002), John’s players are to be:
1. Screened for possible injury, lack of readiness to play;
2. Given appropriate warm-up and cool-down at training and games;
3. Physically conditioned for the type of activity engaged in;
4. Able to apply techniques and disciple;
5. Understand and apply fair play;
6. Use protective equipment properly when needed;
7. Have appropriate hydration and nutrition;
8. Aware of the different type of injuries and the conditions surrounding those injuries and how to prevent them;
9. Cognizant of the environmental factors (hazards) that might lead to injury; and,
10. Treated properly in injury management, should they be injured.
The RugbySmart model and the supporting literature surrounding this model, including the rules, are written, presented in demonstration, on video, and have accountability measures in place (i.e. no team can practice or play unless the coach has attended a rugby safety workshop). Given the rules of play and the documentation associated with RugbySmart, it is very clear that there is an established standard of care within the sport of rugby.
Defining a standard of care on common-sense within the community is perhaps a little more difficult, however there are milestones that do exist. Criminal law states that if you are in control of something you have legal duty to ensure it does not endanger human life ; community norms generally accept that there inherent risks associated with participation in sport, and that persons responsible for sport will make best effort to make sports and leisure activities safe…. from schools to clubs, from playgrounds to surf beaches, even in our own backyard… for society recognizes that pain and suffering is something we should not wish upon another.
Consequences: scenario one
In this scenario William delivered a precise blow to take his opponent out of the game. The blow broke his opponents ‘back’ and left the young man paralyzed from the waist down.
Consequences: scenario two
In this scenario William’s opponent forced the head down resulting in a ‘broken neck” leaving William with a broken neck and a quadriplegic.
Both young men had promising careers. The police and OSH were brought in to investigate the accident and two courses of action resulted.
The result: scenario one
It was decided that Williams’s action against the opposing player was premeditated and both William and the coach were sanctioned, and criminal charges were brought against John as the coach. The facts bore out that John had engaged in a reckless and negligent behavior by encouraging William to take out his opposing players. John was fined $10,000 by the court, received a criminal conviction, and ended up with $55,000 worth of legal bills. John was also sanctioned from coaching for a year… and never coached after that.
William received a full-year sanction from school and club rugby. He went on to play some local representative rugby, but never showed the promise and spirit to continue beyond high school.
The result: scenario two
William suffered greatly losing his rugby and his mobility to be with his friends. John, the opposing coach and player had all received sanctions that resulted in suspension from the rugby field for a several games. William’s parents on the other hand were beside themselves, faced with the prospect of needing to provide long-term care for their son. At the suggestion of a family friend, they arranged a visit with a lawyer to sort out the issue of long-term financial care for their son. Beyond the lifetime entitlement from ACC, Williams’s parents saw both financial and emotional hardship for their son, which added to their being mad that their son had lost out on his promising career.
In defining what that career might have been, a case was developed and William became the plaintiff against his former coach, his club, the match official, the local and NZRU, the opposing player, and the opposing coach and club for exemplary damages.
Because fault had been found in the opposing coach and player, Williams’s lawyers believed they had a good case to bring civil charges for exemplary damages against all or some of these parties. The filing of the case in the district court brought on a feeding frenzy among the popular media.
Would this case, should the plaintiff’s prevail, be the death knoll to New Zealand amateur sport?
Risk Management Implications:
It could be argued that William, his coach John, club officials, the referee, the Union, itself and the opposing coach and player have all contributed in someway to William’s plight. Making those arguments stick is difficult, and it is not the purpose of this case study to here debate the respective strengths and weaknesses in the legal scenario.
What is important is that we understand our duty of care as a coach and club toward our players and their opponents. In the United States, the United Kingdom, and in Australia recent cases have been won where a player, coach, or club has breached the standard of care.
In one well-known case a professional basketball player severely injured an opposing player, resulting in a successful lawsuit and monetary damages being assessed against the offending player. Coaches who have been shown to knowingly encourage the use illegal tactics against an opponent have been successful charged. Clubs that failed to clean up the violent acts committed by players have been charged, and an official who failed to exert his or her authority and halt illegal violent activity on the field of play have been censured.
The New Zealand Rugby Union has established a standard of care by endorsing RugbySmart, establishing with the International Rugby Board the rules of the game, and by requiring and documenting that all coaches to undergo annual safety workshops.
At the Club Level, a Club Safety officer will document that training and attendees names. The safety officer will also view training and game coaching practices, keep an ear to the ground, and hopefully correct unsafe practices. In William’s case the practice of lining up the opposing back field for softening up might have been exposed in earlier games and corrected before the catastrophic results.
It might have also been the practice of the club to bring players and their parents together to explain RugbySmart, the rules, and other general safety practices. Some clubs are known to document these workshops with sign-in’s and videotaping the content and attendee’s to demonstrate that the club is making best attempts to create and maintain a culture of safety.
A safety conscious club will put measures in place to identify, reduce or eliminate the risks associated with the sport. John’s club might have known of his tactics, and by knowing and not doing anything about it they unwittingly allowed a young player to endure a catastrophic injury and a coach to suffer perhaps the rest of life with the knowledge he put a young talented player down.
As the season proceeded, John the 5th grade coach was very happy with the progress shown by his boys. The team had built an impression. John was a tough coach and his players and their parents respected that tough discipline as a testimony to John’s team’s successes over a 12-year period. John was a provincial representative player in his day and was known for mental toughness and rugged play, especially hard hitting tackles that put fear in the minds of opposing players.
One of John’s young loose-forwards, William Hosking (fictitious) was showing the same spirit and toughness. John’s coaching colleagues and friends had spotted this talent, and William seemed destined to high levels of representative rugby and possible financial reward. William had the speed, strength and size, and an uncanny knack of always being in the right position on offensive as well as defense. He was a player feared by opposing teams, who learned that a hard tackle from young Hosking meant pain and a general discomfort for the rest of the game. William had discovered that driving home a tackle beyond the opposing players’ body position resulted in devastating results for the person being tackled. William liked the results and was also receiving great accolades from his coach, his team-mates and his other friends who would send a loud cry of “aahhh” from the side line every time William nailed an opposing player.
Now the story takes a turn here and splits into two scenarios.
Scenario one:
During the opening moments of a season ending game, William is lined up behind and outside of his inside centre to put extra pressure on the strong opposing centre. He and his coach had discussed this policy before the game. As the play from the scrum evolves the opposing team wins the ball and start feeding it out to the back line. John has lined up behind his line a few metres and sprints forward anticipating the moment the ball will reach the player he is marking. Just as the ball reaches that player John drops his head and shoulder and drives forward into his opposing players’ chest with his shoulder, driving a massive force to a point a metre behind the player. The impact is immediately heard around the ground and catches even the “aaahhh!!” chorus by surprise. The ball flies loose and there is a half-hearted scramble by a few players not yet shocked by this tackle….
Scenario two:
John sprints forward toward the anticipated tackle. He drops his head and shoulders toward the opposing player and aims beyond the hips. The opposing player has been well coached and sees the situation coming…. his coach has scouted John’s team and has learned that early in the game John will encourage William to hit hard on the opposing teams back line, especially good players, trying to knock their courage off the field. The opposing coach and his centre have decided to counter and focus on William’s tactic. The result is a well-placed fending hand and force toward the ground as the ball is tossed beyond William’s target.
The fend results in William head being forced to the ground… . There is no “aahhh!!” this time as William’s body goes limp.
What is the duty of care a coach owes to his athletes?
By definition, a coach must take all practical steps to ensure that his player(s) are warned, instructed, protected and corrected to ensure they are safe. As such, in this case, John is expected
1. To follow the RugbySmart Model; and
2. To use common-sense as defined by his ‘civil’ society.
Applying the RugbySmart model (2002), John’s players are to be:
1. Screened for possible injury, lack of readiness to play;
2. Given appropriate warm-up and cool-down at training and games;
3. Physically conditioned for the type of activity engaged in;
4. Able to apply techniques and disciple;
5. Understand and apply fair play;
6. Use protective equipment properly when needed;
7. Have appropriate hydration and nutrition;
8. Aware of the different type of injuries and the conditions surrounding those injuries and how to prevent them;
9. Cognizant of the environmental factors (hazards) that might lead to injury; and,
10. Treated properly in injury management, should they be injured.
The RugbySmart model and the supporting literature surrounding this model, including the rules, are written, presented in demonstration, on video, and have accountability measures in place (i.e. no team can practice or play unless the coach has attended a rugby safety workshop). Given the rules of play and the documentation associated with RugbySmart, it is very clear that there is an established standard of care within the sport of rugby.
Defining a standard of care on common-sense within the community is perhaps a little more difficult, however there are milestones that do exist. Criminal law states that if you are in control of something you have legal duty to ensure it does not endanger human life ; community norms generally accept that there inherent risks associated with participation in sport, and that persons responsible for sport will make best effort to make sports and leisure activities safe…. from schools to clubs, from playgrounds to surf beaches, even in our own backyard… for society recognizes that pain and suffering is something we should not wish upon another.
Consequences: scenario one
In this scenario William delivered a precise blow to take his opponent out of the game. The blow broke his opponents ‘back’ and left the young man paralyzed from the waist down.
Consequences: scenario two
In this scenario William’s opponent forced the head down resulting in a ‘broken neck” leaving William with a broken neck and a quadriplegic.
Both young men had promising careers. The police and OSH were brought in to investigate the accident and two courses of action resulted.
The result: scenario one
It was decided that Williams’s action against the opposing player was premeditated and both William and the coach were sanctioned, and criminal charges were brought against John as the coach. The facts bore out that John had engaged in a reckless and negligent behavior by encouraging William to take out his opposing players. John was fined $10,000 by the court, received a criminal conviction, and ended up with $55,000 worth of legal bills. John was also sanctioned from coaching for a year… and never coached after that.
William received a full-year sanction from school and club rugby. He went on to play some local representative rugby, but never showed the promise and spirit to continue beyond high school.
The result: scenario two
William suffered greatly losing his rugby and his mobility to be with his friends. John, the opposing coach and player had all received sanctions that resulted in suspension from the rugby field for a several games. William’s parents on the other hand were beside themselves, faced with the prospect of needing to provide long-term care for their son. At the suggestion of a family friend, they arranged a visit with a lawyer to sort out the issue of long-term financial care for their son. Beyond the lifetime entitlement from ACC, Williams’s parents saw both financial and emotional hardship for their son, which added to their being mad that their son had lost out on his promising career.
In defining what that career might have been, a case was developed and William became the plaintiff against his former coach, his club, the match official, the local and NZRU, the opposing player, and the opposing coach and club for exemplary damages.
Because fault had been found in the opposing coach and player, Williams’s lawyers believed they had a good case to bring civil charges for exemplary damages against all or some of these parties. The filing of the case in the district court brought on a feeding frenzy among the popular media.
Would this case, should the plaintiff’s prevail, be the death knoll to New Zealand amateur sport?
Risk Management Implications:
It could be argued that William, his coach John, club officials, the referee, the Union, itself and the opposing coach and player have all contributed in someway to William’s plight. Making those arguments stick is difficult, and it is not the purpose of this case study to here debate the respective strengths and weaknesses in the legal scenario.
What is important is that we understand our duty of care as a coach and club toward our players and their opponents. In the United States, the United Kingdom, and in Australia recent cases have been won where a player, coach, or club has breached the standard of care.
In one well-known case a professional basketball player severely injured an opposing player, resulting in a successful lawsuit and monetary damages being assessed against the offending player. Coaches who have been shown to knowingly encourage the use illegal tactics against an opponent have been successful charged. Clubs that failed to clean up the violent acts committed by players have been charged, and an official who failed to exert his or her authority and halt illegal violent activity on the field of play have been censured.
The New Zealand Rugby Union has established a standard of care by endorsing RugbySmart, establishing with the International Rugby Board the rules of the game, and by requiring and documenting that all coaches to undergo annual safety workshops.
At the Club Level, a Club Safety officer will document that training and attendees names. The safety officer will also view training and game coaching practices, keep an ear to the ground, and hopefully correct unsafe practices. In William’s case the practice of lining up the opposing back field for softening up might have been exposed in earlier games and corrected before the catastrophic results.
It might have also been the practice of the club to bring players and their parents together to explain RugbySmart, the rules, and other general safety practices. Some clubs are known to document these workshops with sign-in’s and videotaping the content and attendee’s to demonstrate that the club is making best attempts to create and maintain a culture of safety.
A safety conscious club will put measures in place to identify, reduce or eliminate the risks associated with the sport. John’s club might have known of his tactics, and by knowing and not doing anything about it they unwittingly allowed a young player to endure a catastrophic injury and a coach to suffer perhaps the rest of life with the knowledge he put a young talented player down.