Dan Udoh - Club Should Take Action
From watching the game online, I am disgusted by James Gibbons.
James Gibbons intends to smash the ball against Dan Udoh unnecessarily, and the club and or Dan Udoh himself should take legal action. It was dangerous and has resulted in a head injury, causing him to miss games.
This sort of behaviour has no place in the beautiful game.
3
Comments
As much as I agree with the sentiment, taking “legal action” will be a complete waste of time and money.
No chance of taking legal action, especially as Blooms said afterwards that Udoh is fine (suspect he'll still miss the next 2 games though).
Very poor from the Cambridge player though, Bloomfield himself said he wasn't happy with what had happened. Play was already stopped and the lad has needlessly and deliberately booted the ball at Udoh's head.
I'm not so sure about that. Football players, or those in any contact sport, have a duty of care to their opponents, and a negligent breach of that duty, causing injury, can result in a compensatory award.
In this case, Dan Udoh was on the ground when Gibbons smashed the ball as hard as possible against his head from less than a foot away. This was both reckless and careless.
In 2008, Ben Collett, a Man Utd player, was tackled by Gary Smith of Middlesbrough, high and above the ball, resulting in him breaking his tibia and fibula. He launched a case against both Smith and the Club in the High Court, and was successful in being awarded some £4.3 million in damages, including a substantial proportion for loss of future earnings.
The full Judgment is available here: Collett v Smith & Anor [2008] EWHC 1962 (QB) (11 August 2008) (bailii.org)
@bargepole But Udoh won't lose any earnings. He'll still get paid this week while he's unable to play due to concussion protocols and will then continue his career unabated.
I somehow missed it during the game, anyone got a minute-mark I can look up in the full-match replay on WWTV? Hoping it's not in the 17m03s to 17m47s range as that seems to have been mysteriously edited out.
Agreed, and I'm not suggesting he could claim for £ millions like Collett did. But the Court did award £35,000 in general damages, and it could be argued that Udoh suffered a detriment by having to be subbed off early, and then having to fight to get back his place in the starting lineup when he returns to action.
It really couldn’t.
the FA could retrospectively take action if they believe it was a red card offence missed by the ref.
Sounds very likely that a criminal charge of assault could be applied here, deliberate, dangerous, resulting in a serious head injury requiring the victim to be off work. Such blows to the head can result in permanent damage, whether that materialises in this case or not is beside the point.
Surely this should be something looked into by the PFA? I thought their main purpose was to look after their players interests.
I think the concussion rules say a player cannot play in the six days after such an incident. So he will miss Villa but should be fresh to come straight back in to bang in a hat-trick at Bristol Rovers.
The main thing is to ensure Dan is OK.
Haven't seen it but wonder if the PFA would be more concerned about where players suing eachother leads the game. Ambulance chasers rarely add much.
Any real clear deliberate attempt to hurt a player should be treated very seriously, not convinced it will be though and that will have it's consequences.
Not a chance of sueing in the slightest.
I got your sentiments... and understand to a point your reasons for suggesting that.....
But not in a billion years will that happen.
Our lad is fine.... May have to by laws miss a couple.... but I don't see any of our lot about to kick off about it
Certainly against taking players to court for football related matters. What I would like to see is more retrospective actions against players especially now we have more cameras.
Diving, elbows, feigning injury etc can all be picked up on camera and dealt with.
our lad is not fine, he has concussion. Ask a doctor whether they think that is fine or not , or maybe read up about it. Perhaps also read up about the law whilst you are about it. Putting on a football shirt doesn’t render you free of basic ethical obligations or give you carte blanche in the eyes of the law, as has already been shown by @bargepole who does know the law.
Wow..... chill!
Ok hands up! I agree concussion is nothing to take lightly. I meant fine as in it looks likely he will not need to be sidelined for a long while.
My point I made obviously poorly was more to do with my opinion that I sadly doubt anything will be done about it retrospectively.
The first hurdle to climb in any legal action would be to provide the Court with conclusive medical evidence that a player is suffering from concussion. Unless an MRI scan has been carried out, it would even be difficult for my learned friend @bargepole to win the case.
@mooneyman the legal standard in a criminal case is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ but if you are prosecuting the assault than you are testing the action and not the result,
In a civil case for damages, the standard is ‘on the balance of probability’. I would back @bargepole to bring either home. Regarding the degree of compensation - now the degree of harm becomes more relevant.
Sorry @Alexo , I did come in rather strongly. On this occasion it seems that he will come through ok, but the effects seem to be cumulative, you become more prone to concussion with repeated exposure and this is a game where people are using their heads a lot, so it is possible that there could be long term consequences.
I agree that it is unlikely anyone will do anything, which baffles me. It shows that the industry really is paying lip service to the issue, it’s a massive can of worms given the integral part that heading has in the game and so the game doesn’t know how to go about dealing with any of it.
The moment that a player takes "legal action" against a player, it'll open a massive can of worms throughout the world of Football and would have horrible knock-on effects. We can all look back in history over examples of pre-determined actions where a player has gone above the laws of the game to inflict injury or damage against another player. For example, we have Haaland vs Keane, Bowyer vs Dyer, Vinnie Jones vs Paul Gascoigne, Joey Barton vs Any Footballer where we have seen footage and in some cases have actual written proof that the damage done was 100% intentional. We aren't in America where they have a easier and quicker "suing culture" please can we not turn the game we love into a finger pointing contest in a law court.
If this spills over into the grassroots game, it'll completely destroy it when at a time, the grassroot / amateur game is shrinking at a very quick rate. People won't play in the fear that they don't want to face legal action for one poorly timed challenge or be set up by a team, tackling someone who already has an injury, making it worse and then being taken to court.
I haven't seen the situation with Udoh so I can't make my own views on the situation. From what has been written, this incident needs to be reviewed by the FA and/or match officials and a sanction should be applied. However, if the FA hasn't / won't be taking action on this incident, a legal challenge / case is almost impossible
@Otter87 you talk as if it hasn’t already happened. Legal precedents have already been set and the footballing world has not ceased to exist. It is possible to have the game and simultaneously hold its exponents as adults responsible for their actions. The two are not mutually exclusive.
To a degree I accept that viewpoint. However, the referee and his assistants didn't deem the "assault" to be a red card offence. Unless I have missed it, there also doesn't seem to have been any retrospective action by the FA.
Jason Cousins
When a challenge as ended a career, then I can find a few examples online. However, as a precedent, this isn't the norm in football and also most of the examples are from a certain type of semi-pro football. Nothing will happen if someone went out to end someone's "career" on the Wye
When did this happen? I didn't notice it at the time at all.
I forgot! He's almost become viral with his challenge on Youtube and I haven't seen any court papers about that challenge yet?
It would be an interesting defence. Yes m’lud, notwithstanding the successful 2008 claim there was this tackle way back when which didn’t come to court, so surely I can do whatever I like thirty years later.
If he was playing football on the Wye he'd be in more danger of drowning.
Have you noticed the poster's name?
Now there's a conspiracy, @Otter87 is an actual otter, and all along I've been thinking he was an otter.