Yup, that's exactly what was being said.
Not sure. Although the burden of proof in a civil suit is lower than in a criminal matter, I don't see intent being the main argument. I see it as being no more than a personal injury claim from Hume himself, which potentially brings in Barnsley's own staff, and the fact that his job puts him in a position where personal injury is a real possibility week in, week out.
Using the word intent was possibly a little misleading. However, I would think you either need deliberate intent or reckless disregard for the other player / rules of the game. Both would seem to imply some conscious decision made by the player to put his arm out. If however, it was totally accidental in that he hadn't even realised that he'd put his arm out, could he have been reckless for the other players safety and thus negligent, when he had no knowledge that the danger existed?
Does not the Duty of Care say that your neighbour "is persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when
I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."
This raises an interesting point. How could you contemplate the effect on your neighbour if you didn't direct your mind to the raising of your elbow because you didn't even know you were doing it?
Is this not the difference between an accident and a tortious act. An accident is something whether the party couldn't have foreseen the danger. A tortious act is one where they could have forseen the danger and that by failing to act or by means of an act they carried out there was a possibility of injury to another which they then went on to fail to alleviate.
This is where I think Barnsley potentially have a problem. In my opinion, they need to in some way prove that Morgan knew he was putting his arm out in order to show that he was reckless with regards to the safety of Hume and thus negligent. This is quite hard to do in my opinion as it wasn't the tackle that caused the injury but something ancillary to it. Its quite easy to show reckless disregard if someone goes in too hard for example as you know what you are doing and with how much force when making the tackle and thus are aware of the danger of injury from excessive force. But here the injury arose not directly out of the tackle but something ancillary to it, ie the raising of the arm, so proving that he actually knew he was carrying out the ancillary act is in my opinion essential to establish that he should have contemplated the effect and thus danger on his neighbour.
Well that's not true is it? It was illegal under the Laws, but they can't do anything about it.
It is illegal to deliberately use an arm but an accidental clash? I don't think thats against the laws of the game.
Its like saying an accidental clash of heads and a head butt are the same thing. The former isn't against the rules but the latter is, even though they both involve essentially the same act, a meeting of heads.
Then again, like I said earlier, I haven't seen the tackle so didn't see what actually went on.
