I'm saying that when accounting for the wording in the LOTG, careless, reckless or dangerous can all result in a catastrophic injury. It's just that the risk profile of each is considerably different. I think it's human nature to judge risk with hindsight as opposed to foresight. If I tipped a horse I knew had a 50/50 chance of winning but it's odds were 3/1, the average Joe would consider it a bad bet if the horse goes on to lose. It wasn't, it was a fantastic bet regardless of the outcome
Anyway, I think it's really good refereeing to account for all evidence when making a decision. In the case of judging CRUEF, we often can't be anything like certain when judging risk with foresight, so it can be sensible to reverse engineer the outcome (injury) to 'guess' at whether excessive force was a factor
A severe injury such as a broken leg is a very strong piece of evidence when the Jury (us, the referee) presides over the sanction. But it shouldn't be the only determinator because other evidence may clearly point towards careless, reckless, or indeed, no foul at all. Sometimes bad things happen and nobody is guilty of a heinous crime, which is what happened in my game this season. Just bad luck
Anyway, I think it's really good refereeing to account for all evidence when making a decision. In the case of judging CRUEF, we often can't be anything like certain when judging risk with foresight, so it can be sensible to reverse engineer the outcome (injury) to 'guess' at whether excessive force was a factor
A severe injury such as a broken leg is a very strong piece of evidence when the Jury (us, the referee) presides over the sanction. But it shouldn't be the only determinator because other evidence may clearly point towards careless, reckless, or indeed, no foul at all. Sometimes bad things happen and nobody is guilty of a heinous crime, which is what happened in my game this season. Just bad luck
Last edited:
