Another challenge for rugby?

Wisconsin politics and education policy have made big headlines over the past few months. However, relatively modest proposal in 2011 Sensate Bill 95 may have unintended consequences for Wisconsin's growing high school rugby community.

This bill, among other proposed changes to education policy, would allow school districts to grant credit to student-athletes for participation in athletics if the sport is WIAA sanctioned. Over the past decade, we have successfully grown high school girls rugby programs. One challenge has always been changing the mindset of parents and players that playing for love of the game and putting rugby as your extra-curricular was as worthwhile as earning a varsity letter (with limited exceptions for those private schools that voluntarily grant varsity letters to their rugby athletes). Now will we need to convince players that rugby is a better deal than fulfilling course requirements?

Perhaps it is time that we ask, what does it take to be a WIAA sport? If anyone has connections with the state legislature, perhaps the bill can be amended? Why should the WIAA have control over a decision of whether credit should be granted versus a decision by the local school board or private school?

It is just one more potential challenge. But if we didn't enjoy tough challenges, we wouldn't play, coach, cheer for, and love rugby! B

Title IX Blog

I suppose this can't be a blog about women's rugby without mentioning Title IX. I just came across a really well done blog about Title IX which is worth reading. I'll be sure to add it to my regular reads on the side here.

Use those sideline ropes

Many sports related law suits involve injury (that's why there are lawsuits to begin with). I am happy to say that most lawsuits do not involve rugby. However, there are still important principles at play that have implications for the rugby community. In Shain v. Racine Raiders Football Club, Inc., 2006 WI App 257 a coach was injured while standing on the sidelines of a youth (11-12 year old) football game.


Multiple youth teams were playing games on a football field with the youth fields laid out running from side-line to side-line of the full-sized field. As a result, the middle fields shared a sideline. The coach was injured when a player from the adjacent field ran out of bounds and struck the coach, injuring his knee. The coach sued, alleging that the the organizers were negligent in not laying out the fields to allow a safety zone between fields.


The court tossed about whether the coach was a spectator, and therefore subject to the "Baseball Rule" or a participant, and therefore subject to Wis. Stat. s. 895.525(4m) which allows for recovery for injuries in a contact sport "only if the participant who caused the injury acted recklessly or with intent to cause injury." cf. my prior post. The "Baseball Rule", in brief, is that a spectator assumes the risk of attending a sporting event and, therefore cannot sue if, for instance, they are hit by a foul ball or some other foreseeable consequence of attending a particular type of sporting event. Ultimately, the court concluded that the coach was a hybrid spectator/participant and that his own negligence precluded recovery. In other words, when standing on a sideline between two fields, the coach should have known that he might get run into by a player from the other field.


Youth rugby guidelines recommend laying out youth fields in a similar manner (i.e. two fields running width wide across a rugby pitch) -- but suggest having a 5-10m safety zone between the sideline and the field goal posts and a 10m safety zone between the youth pitches -- if only they had been playing rugby this all could have been avoided. More importantly, the court's holding in Shain is directly applicable to the involvement of coaches in rugby in the event a coach (or spectator) is injured on the sideline -- when attending a rugby game -- people standing on the sideline should know that players may run about of bounds and you may get hurt. Therefore, it is best for spectators to stand behind the sideline ropes and for people in front of the sideline ropes to pay attention to the game, so that injury can be avoided.

The Laws are the law...

In an effort to report about relevant sports law, here is an oldie but one of the few American cases involving the sport of rugby, D'Agostino v. Karjewsi, 89 CIV. 0131 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) [UNPUBLISHED]. Before I recite the facts, let me just say that every sport (even wiffle ball) has cases of injury and foul play. This case does not reflect on Rugby as a whole, rugby players, etc... Rather, it is one unfortunate incident. However, there is a lesson for all players... the Laws of the Game are the law.

In 1988, Old Blue RFC and Mystic River RFC were playing a game at the Can-AM Rugby Tournament. During the game, a Mystic player was lying on the ball during a ruck. The sir called the penalty and blew the whistle to stop play. After the whistle, an Old Blue player the defendant "ran towards" the player on the ground and kicked him in the face. The sir penalized Old Blue and sent the player off immediately.

The injured player later sued the player who kicked him, Old Blue Rugby Club, its Captain and officers (on the theory that they were negligent in recruitment and discipline of the player (who was a professional playing in an amateur game), the tournament organizers (because they were negligent in inviting Old Blue to play in the tournament and should have been aware of Old Blue's reputation for violence).

The defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit based on the "assumption of risk" doctrine --i.e. that the player, by entering the rugby game, understood the risks and by playing the game "consented to those injury-causing events which are known, apparent or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation." This doctrine is generally true, but where the conduct which causes injury was "reckless or intentional" the person can be held liable and potentially those individuals (like the team captain/officers/coaches) who knew or should have known about the player's propensity to play outside the rules.

In denying the motion to dismiss, the court noted that the injury occurred after the whistle had stopped play for the first penalty. The question of whether the injury was "foreseeable" (and therefore within the "assumption of risk" doctrine) depends on factors, including but not limited to "the ultimate purpose of the game and the method or methods of winning it; the relationship between the defendant's conduct to the game's ultimate purpose, especially his conduct with respect to rules and customs whose purpose is to enhance safety of the participants; and the equipment involved in playing the game."

In analyzing these factors, court noted that the type of play involved in the case (i.e. kicking a player after the whistle had blown) had no relationship to the rules of the game of rugby:

Although rugby is an inherently rough contact sport, the act of kicking someone after play has been stopped has no relation to a team's ultimate purpose of gaining possession of or advancing the ball.

Furthermore, such an act is a flagrant violation of the rules of rugby, which state "it is illegal for any player willfully to hack or kick an opponent or to trip him with the foot, or to trample on the opponent lying on the ground."

Therefore, because the player's conduct was flagrantly outside of the laws of Rugby, the judge allowed the claim to proceed to trial. Moreover, the court found that there were material issues of fact as to whether Old Blue, its officer and captain and the tournament organizers should have known that this player had a tendency to flagrantly violate the Laws of rugby when playing.

The lesson for coaches and players should be obvious. We can't tolerate dangerous play and coaches must be sure to discipline players appropriately (i.e. suspending players who have been issued red cards by the sir) and instructing players regarding proper play.

Let me just say one more time -- this isn't a rugby issue. The Court's ruling was actually based on an suit involving jockeys and horse racing, Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432 (1986).

The trials and tribulations of coaching...

In a story reported by the New York Post, BASE ACCUSATION , back in May a parent sued Little League Baseball and her son's coach after the player was injured while sliding into a base. The parent alleged that the coach failed to equip the player with the skill necessary to safely play baseball.

If a parent is willing to sue a baseball coach for not teaching a kid to slide, just think what a parent would do if a coach didn't teach a player to properly tackle, scrum, ruck, etc... Coaches should really spend the time getting USARFU certifications and reading up on teaching safety to their players. Clubs should invest in their coaches and help defray the cost of training program for these volunteers (with one or two notable exceptions). Investing in coach training makes the sport safer and more enjoyable for all. Having said that, I think our Wisconsin teams have an excellent record of both coaches and sirs stressing safety first when training new players. Let's keep up the good work and not end up like that ruffian sport, baseball.

Since its the off-season, I will try to report on some of those pesky legal topics that surround the rugby community. Hopefully, this will be of interest to some readers.