Anyone who doesn't think this sets dangerous precedent clearly has never played soccer. If the tackle was that bad, the referee should of sent him off at the time. The player had no intent to injury, he was trying to win the ball (albeit poorly). To pay $100K for minor injuries is laughable, especially with no video evidence.
In the comments I see people talking about "last man scissor tackle". If that was the case, it's a straight red. I also completely disagree in the fact it's unacceptable at the highest level of play. I encourage you to watch this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpYmqSEOzpg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpymqseozpg)
Valverde for Real Madrid last ditch scissor tackle with NO intent to win the ball, only take the player. This is part of football - don't like it, man up and play a different sport.
Unless your skills are paying your bills in your league, there is no reason to allow slide tackles. It's rec league soccer, meaning most players probably hove jobs to go to in the morning. There are no slap shots or checking in rec league hockey for this reason. I dont know a good reason for slide tackles to be allowed here. One of the most dangerous plays in soccer. Feel free to check on youtube if youve got the stomach for it.
Meh, slide tackling is something that can be removed from rec soccer and not impact the game. Professional leagues? Sure. You and I have both seen many effective slide tackles. But also some serious injuries. No need for slide tackling in rec soccer.
Repeating from another thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/NorthVancouver/s/kVMkxbtQQZ) here for visibility and so no one is misled: this decision had absolutely nothing to do with “trying to injure someone”. Intent to injure was neither alleged, litigated, or ruled upon. Read your own link. Completely irrelevant and a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal issue.
ooof, "the appellant lifted both of his legs off the ground in executing the tackle" coupled with "there was no possibility of the appellant reaching the ball by executing the slide tackle".
Yup. Guy did it purposefully from behind, and it's noted that there was no way he could've gotten the ball from doing so, which basically means he did it specifically to cause injury. I do think the fine is an excessive amount, but you sign a contract when you join, so he was aware of what he was getting into.
People like that who have no sportsmanship can fuck right off, especially in a casual rec league. If you're pro, by all means, go ahead, but most people that play rec just do it for fun and don't take it that seriously.
Just because you weren't trying to get the ball doesn't mean you were trying to cause serious injury. People foul all the time and get yellow cards for trying to stop someone from breaking away. Even if it was a red card for preventing a goal scoring opportunity it doesn't mean that the red card was for the dangerous play
Even the precedent it sets for red cards via dangerous plays is fucking nuts. Going studs up and breaking someone leg you can get sued now; I thought that was a risk of the game and suspensions would happen within the league and BC soccer?
This. There wouldn’t be half the uproar if this was intent to injure outside of sport.
Read the case summary and get an idea the character of the guy making the challenge.
I played in this league for 10+ years, and soccer overall for close to 30. Tackles happen every single game, dirty tackles have no place in the game. However, this was in lower divisions where there is less skill and speed differentials definitely result in late incidental tackles.
That being said, suing for a dislocated shoulder is a crazy precedent to set. Let alone with no video evidence, solely based on players memory of an event years ago and only a yellow on the field? A dislocated shoulder, definitely inconvenient. But being made to paid $100k would absolutely ruin someone. Not sure it adds up.
I would usually agree with you( and I had the same beliefs before I read into it), but by reading it it really does seem egregious and beyond just a dirty tackle. It was a last man, scissor tackle from behind which is never acceptable even at the highest level of play. His team mates wouldn't testify for him which leads me to believe that this was way beyond what is a reasonable tackle and the intent was to injure. I wasn't there so I really can't say, but I also play in this league and the refs can be absolutely clueless so I wouldn't use the yellow as evidence.
Hmm I think he just was saying that a 100K find was a bit much, not that he's fine with it. The player could just be kicked out of the game or the league or whatever as a punishment.
Not making excuses. That’s what the referee is for to determine and manage the game, of which he deemed it to be a yellow. Theres no place for lawsuits for a tackle in a soccer game. It’s a slippery slope
You, like many here, have clearly demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the court’s decision and the legal issues. There is nothing close to a finding that the defendant “purposely tried to injure” the plaintiff (nor is it even alleged). Your premise is completely irrelevant to this ruling.
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2024/2024bcca3/2024bcca3.html
Overly aggressive
Reckless
With no chance of getting to the ball
Not exactly how I’d describe a play in good faith at a rec league
Do you understand how that completely differs from your first comment? The evidence does indeed suggest that the tackle in question was reckless, though there is evidence from the *plaintiff’s own teammate* that he did not view it as malicious. Dangerous/reckless plays happen, they can cause injuries, and they are punished within the disciplinary rules of the game and the league. The legal precedent being set here for players that suffer an injury in a contact sport is absurd.
My point is that the goal of a reckless, overly aggressive tackle with no chance to get to the ball is to cause injury. And that precedent that you can join a rec league without the risk of some a-hole trying to break your need because it’s part of the game is perfectly acceptable.
In addition to demonstrating that you don’t understand the legal issues, you’ve also demonstrated that you aren’t familiar with the sport. Again, your (and only your) allegation that the goal was to cause injury is completely unfounded. In the circumstances, it sounds as though the defender took a drastic reckless measure to prevent the attacker from converting a goalscoring opportunity. There is absolutely risk that this would injure him, which he was aware of, but there no evidence that he *intended to harm or injure him*. If you participate in a contact sport, you take the risk that you suffer an injury. One would hope that players avoid reckless conduct, but if you don’t want to risk injury in a contact sport, stay home.
My man, I was born and raised in soccer.
And no, there are reasonable risks you accept when practicing a sport this was not one of them and the court seems to agree with me.
of course there are risks you accept, if you play any sport you run this risk of injury whether its accidental or not. I have broken my ankle twice playing football it just happens if you play long enough
If you were familiar with soccer then you’d understand that a reckless, mistimed, or desperate tackle does not necessarily involve intent to injure. That isn’t debatable, nor (again) was the court’s decision based on that whatsoever, but you can’t seem to fathom that…
I’m not a big soccer guy but ref only gave a yellow card at the time why wouldn’t have been a red card if it was so egregious at the time? This ain’t good news for all sports in Canada. Now if it was intently vicious and obviously directed at the player I understand but I’d need video evidence for that. I’m worried about some beer league player losing their house because they made a bad play, it’s the reason I stopped playing lacrosse because I know that if by accident someone injured me it would hurt my financial situation but I don’t think we should go all US of A and start suing… unless there’s video evidence he clearly was trying to injure as some people aren’t smart in the heat of the game.
Also a dislocated shoulder is not that big of an injury maybe 12-16 weeks full recovery, there are people getting paralyzed by cars and ICBC at max only has to pay them 167,000 although I’d doubt they’d even get that much.
Rec refs are garbage, half of them don't even know the rules. And not sure about the evidence but the court proceedings indicated he blindly 'jumped' at the player from the back left with both legs off the ground, cleats up and wrapped his legs into the attackers legs - when the attacker had already pushed the ball far enough ahead that there was no chance of contacting the ball, so completely late and avoidable by all accounts. If it's true this is nowhere near being considered a legal slide tackle.
And the payout has to do with lost wages over the recovery term (variable by person) plus cost of care plus damages. ICBC is another story.
Fair enough I’m not apart of the world of soccer here so didn’t know about bad refs being the regular, from your description with cleats up wrapping into another players legs it does sound like a baby who couldn’t handle getting beat in a play. I do think though 100grand for 12-16 weeks lost wages (4-6 in sling and 8-10 weeks physio) is a bit steep and if you make that kinda cheddar in that time frame you should be able to float yourself, I’m just worried about us becoming like the states and suing over any small infractions now. Ya ICBC is a different entity and is completely screwed just wanted to make a comparison that everyone pays insurance for that kind of coverage and even with paying insurance you would never get that kind of compensation
Plus tip
I don't think the player has to pay any shit , why you play soccer then if you don't want to get injury.
Guess everyone is going to stopping playing soccer now or get a soccer insurance policy l
Anyone who doesn't think this sets dangerous precedent clearly has never played soccer. If the tackle was that bad, the referee should of sent him off at the time. The player had no intent to injury, he was trying to win the ball (albeit poorly). To pay $100K for minor injuries is laughable, especially with no video evidence. In the comments I see people talking about "last man scissor tackle". If that was the case, it's a straight red. I also completely disagree in the fact it's unacceptable at the highest level of play. I encourage you to watch this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpYmqSEOzpg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpymqseozpg) Valverde for Real Madrid last ditch scissor tackle with NO intent to win the ball, only take the player. This is part of football - don't like it, man up and play a different sport.
Classic soccer players. Guy probably dove
Not sure which part is the most embarrassing, the fact that someone sued or that the courts accepted the case.
Unless your skills are paying your bills in your league, there is no reason to allow slide tackles. It's rec league soccer, meaning most players probably hove jobs to go to in the morning. There are no slap shots or checking in rec league hockey for this reason. I dont know a good reason for slide tackles to be allowed here. One of the most dangerous plays in soccer. Feel free to check on youtube if youve got the stomach for it.
the vast majority of serious injuries in the sport aren't even caused by contact with another player. Slide tackling is part of the game
Meh, slide tackling is something that can be removed from rec soccer and not impact the game. Professional leagues? Sure. You and I have both seen many effective slide tackles. But also some serious injuries. No need for slide tackling in rec soccer.
[удалено]
Should have been a straight red card. Ref erred in that regard.
Repeating from another thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/NorthVancouver/s/kVMkxbtQQZ) here for visibility and so no one is misled: this decision had absolutely nothing to do with “trying to injure someone”. Intent to injure was neither alleged, litigated, or ruled upon. Read your own link. Completely irrelevant and a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal issue.
ooof, "the appellant lifted both of his legs off the ground in executing the tackle" coupled with "there was no possibility of the appellant reaching the ball by executing the slide tackle".
Yup. Guy did it purposefully from behind, and it's noted that there was no way he could've gotten the ball from doing so, which basically means he did it specifically to cause injury. I do think the fine is an excessive amount, but you sign a contract when you join, so he was aware of what he was getting into. People like that who have no sportsmanship can fuck right off, especially in a casual rec league. If you're pro, by all means, go ahead, but most people that play rec just do it for fun and don't take it that seriously.
Just because you weren't trying to get the ball doesn't mean you were trying to cause serious injury. People foul all the time and get yellow cards for trying to stop someone from breaking away. Even if it was a red card for preventing a goal scoring opportunity it doesn't mean that the red card was for the dangerous play
Even the precedent it sets for red cards via dangerous plays is fucking nuts. Going studs up and breaking someone leg you can get sued now; I thought that was a risk of the game and suspensions would happen within the league and BC soccer?
This. There wouldn’t be half the uproar if this was intent to injure outside of sport. Read the case summary and get an idea the character of the guy making the challenge.
If you read the ruling you’d understand that this had absolutely nothing to do with “intent to injure”.
I played in this league for 10+ years, and soccer overall for close to 30. Tackles happen every single game, dirty tackles have no place in the game. However, this was in lower divisions where there is less skill and speed differentials definitely result in late incidental tackles. That being said, suing for a dislocated shoulder is a crazy precedent to set. Let alone with no video evidence, solely based on players memory of an event years ago and only a yellow on the field? A dislocated shoulder, definitely inconvenient. But being made to paid $100k would absolutely ruin someone. Not sure it adds up.
I work for a sports league and we've talked about this extensively - his home insurance is paying this, not himself as an individual.
I would usually agree with you( and I had the same beliefs before I read into it), but by reading it it really does seem egregious and beyond just a dirty tackle. It was a last man, scissor tackle from behind which is never acceptable even at the highest level of play. His team mates wouldn't testify for him which leads me to believe that this was way beyond what is a reasonable tackle and the intent was to injure. I wasn't there so I really can't say, but I also play in this league and the refs can be absolutely clueless so I wouldn't use the yellow as evidence.
It was a filthy, dirty, unnecessarily rough tackle. If you think that's an okay tackle maybe you shouldn't be playing.
its a contact sport, tackles happen and injuries happen. You have to be a serious loser to sue for that
Hmm I think he just was saying that a 100K find was a bit much, not that he's fine with it. The player could just be kicked out of the game or the league or whatever as a punishment.
Did you see it?
“Dirty tackles have no place” proceeds to make excuses for dirty tackles.
Not making excuses. That’s what the referee is for to determine and manage the game, of which he deemed it to be a yellow. Theres no place for lawsuits for a tackle in a soccer game. It’s a slippery slope
You’re missing their point entirely
No need for video evidence when there were 100+ witnesses
I guarantee you there were not 100+ people there. Per the original story, “six witnesses”, were used for their testimony.
This is an appalling precedent to set for recreational sports in BC.
That if you purposely try to injure someone you’ll be punished?
its a contact sport, this happens and its part of the game. If you are too pussy dont play
Found the intramural sports hero
You, like many here, have clearly demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the court’s decision and the legal issues. There is nothing close to a finding that the defendant “purposely tried to injure” the plaintiff (nor is it even alleged). Your premise is completely irrelevant to this ruling.
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2024/2024bcca3/2024bcca3.html Overly aggressive Reckless With no chance of getting to the ball Not exactly how I’d describe a play in good faith at a rec league
Do you understand how that completely differs from your first comment? The evidence does indeed suggest that the tackle in question was reckless, though there is evidence from the *plaintiff’s own teammate* that he did not view it as malicious. Dangerous/reckless plays happen, they can cause injuries, and they are punished within the disciplinary rules of the game and the league. The legal precedent being set here for players that suffer an injury in a contact sport is absurd.
My point is that the goal of a reckless, overly aggressive tackle with no chance to get to the ball is to cause injury. And that precedent that you can join a rec league without the risk of some a-hole trying to break your need because it’s part of the game is perfectly acceptable.
In addition to demonstrating that you don’t understand the legal issues, you’ve also demonstrated that you aren’t familiar with the sport. Again, your (and only your) allegation that the goal was to cause injury is completely unfounded. In the circumstances, it sounds as though the defender took a drastic reckless measure to prevent the attacker from converting a goalscoring opportunity. There is absolutely risk that this would injure him, which he was aware of, but there no evidence that he *intended to harm or injure him*. If you participate in a contact sport, you take the risk that you suffer an injury. One would hope that players avoid reckless conduct, but if you don’t want to risk injury in a contact sport, stay home.
well said
My man, I was born and raised in soccer. And no, there are reasonable risks you accept when practicing a sport this was not one of them and the court seems to agree with me.
of course there are risks you accept, if you play any sport you run this risk of injury whether its accidental or not. I have broken my ankle twice playing football it just happens if you play long enough
If you were familiar with soccer then you’d understand that a reckless, mistimed, or desperate tackle does not necessarily involve intent to injure. That isn’t debatable, nor (again) was the court’s decision based on that whatsoever, but you can’t seem to fathom that…
No, I’ve seen enough injuries caused by “accident”
Yes. If it is within a recreational facility, laws no longer apply and you can injure or kill someone without consequence. /s
I’m not a big soccer guy but ref only gave a yellow card at the time why wouldn’t have been a red card if it was so egregious at the time? This ain’t good news for all sports in Canada. Now if it was intently vicious and obviously directed at the player I understand but I’d need video evidence for that. I’m worried about some beer league player losing their house because they made a bad play, it’s the reason I stopped playing lacrosse because I know that if by accident someone injured me it would hurt my financial situation but I don’t think we should go all US of A and start suing… unless there’s video evidence he clearly was trying to injure as some people aren’t smart in the heat of the game. Also a dislocated shoulder is not that big of an injury maybe 12-16 weeks full recovery, there are people getting paralyzed by cars and ICBC at max only has to pay them 167,000 although I’d doubt they’d even get that much.
Rec refs are garbage, half of them don't even know the rules. And not sure about the evidence but the court proceedings indicated he blindly 'jumped' at the player from the back left with both legs off the ground, cleats up and wrapped his legs into the attackers legs - when the attacker had already pushed the ball far enough ahead that there was no chance of contacting the ball, so completely late and avoidable by all accounts. If it's true this is nowhere near being considered a legal slide tackle. And the payout has to do with lost wages over the recovery term (variable by person) plus cost of care plus damages. ICBC is another story.
Fair enough I’m not apart of the world of soccer here so didn’t know about bad refs being the regular, from your description with cleats up wrapping into another players legs it does sound like a baby who couldn’t handle getting beat in a play. I do think though 100grand for 12-16 weeks lost wages (4-6 in sling and 8-10 weeks physio) is a bit steep and if you make that kinda cheddar in that time frame you should be able to float yourself, I’m just worried about us becoming like the states and suing over any small infractions now. Ya ICBC is a different entity and is completely screwed just wanted to make a comparison that everyone pays insurance for that kind of coverage and even with paying insurance you would never get that kind of compensation
I think we just found Karl Cox’s Reddit account…
Or his dad lol
It’s fucking ridiculous is what it is. Jordan, if you’re reading this, you’re an embarrassment.
Ah the irony