If O’Neil sued it could set a real precedent in football
West Ham midfielder, Gary O’Neil, is considering taking legal action against Nigel Reo-Coker following a tackle by the Aston Villa player which has put his career in jeopardy. The 27 year-old left the field on a stretcher and underwent a two-hour operation on his ankle, where it is understood cruciate ligaments had been ripped.
O’Neil will miss the rest of the season and will not be allowed to put weight on his foot for at least the next two months. The best case scenario is a return to action in eight months, but the former Middlesbrough midfielder has been given only 50% reassurance that he will actually ever play again. This is understandably of great concern to West Ham but of even more poignancy to the player himself, who having been so damaged by the challenge of Reo-Coker wishes to personally punish the individual he believes should take full responsibility for his predicament.
In August 2008, former professional footballer, Ben Collett, who almost played for Manchester United but didn’t quite, was awarded £4.5million in compensation for a tackle by Gary Smith which ended his career during his debut for United’s reserves against Middlesbrough as an 18 year-old in 2003. Collett was defended by his former colleagues and manager, Sir Alex Ferguson, at the trial which enabled him to secure such an extensive pay-off, an amount which many questioned at the time. The issue here is surely not the financial value of the player’s potential but whether the decision to award compensation is justified.
Smith’s tackle was deemed ‘negligent’ in the eyes of the law, but the verdict implied the opposite; that Smith, as he approached to make the tackle, may have temporarily forgotten his legal duty of care towards Collett, had he ever been aware of it in the first place. Nobody can argue that the tackle was malicious or premeditated, just negligent or a bit on the reckless side, maybe an error of judgment on the part of Smith. In the past, compensation has been awarded when footballers deliberately set out to injure their opponents, and I would defy any judge to distinguish between an error of judgment and negligence in the mind of a modern professional footballer.
Reo-Coker’s tackle was clearly not initiated with the intent to stunt the career of his opponent, and it should be feared that Collett’s trial might set a dangerous precedent if O’Neil takes similar action against the former West Ham captain. Such action is wrong when considered that tackles of the kind made by Reo-Coker happen every week, one hundred times over, and you can call it negligence or an error of judgment but, as some insurance firms have already stated, the floodgates will open. This could engender a situation whereby clubs claim against their opponents when a player is put out of the game for a few weeks or where smaller clubs may find they can no longer afford their insurance premiums.
So in the wake of the Collett award, and the current O’Neil/Reo-Coker situation, either the game will have to change beyond imagination, to the extent that it becomes effectively a non-contact sport, or clubs and players will become uninsurable. Common sense dictates that football games are full of accident, poor decision-making, errors committed in the heat of the moment and bad timing. Players who take to the field should be mentally prepared for the consequences of these human frailties and O’Neil should consider avoiding legal action to prevent setting a threatening precedent.
Football News 24/7
The fact is that to many players liker Nigel De Jong and Reo Coker like to rough up opponents with follow through tackles to intimidate or knock players out of there stride. I have seen a still photo of the tackle it was nasty reo Coker needs to admit it was late and explain it was not maliciouse. If I accidentley run someone over I am stil responsible.
Reply
JamesC Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
You have seen an still image, and this is your basis, i was there in the villa away support and watching it on MOTD this was a great challenge which unfortunately injured the player, wasn’t even a late tackle like you are suggesting why should he admit to that when he has put in a very good tackle.
Reply
david Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
full agree with you mate
Reply
david Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Reo-coker doesn’t need to admit a thing. you’re judging a tackle on a photo, i watched it live, saw various replays. im a WH fan. it was completely fair. it was just unfortunate. it’s people like you that think pictures are the only proof you need. watch the tackle. he gets the ball completely first. and it was obvious he didn’t want to hurt him it was just unlucky. these players should consider themselves lucky enough to be playing at the level they are at. i got shoulder barged off the ball and tore my acl in my knee. i can’t play football again and im only 24, i can’t sue them but i wouldn’t even if i wanted to. it’s the risk you take when you play no matter what level. they’re abusing the fact they have video to try and get money for a fair tackle. it’s just unlucky for him
Reply
adam Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 11:54 am
You saw a photo? well that says everything.
You are what is wrong with the game.
Reply
The tackle wasn’t even a foul, just unfortunate that O’Neil got injured. If he sues Reo Coker, and it is successful, then that will be a further nail in the football coffin. It won’t be a contact sport anymore, as people will be afraid of being sued.
Reply
Fair tackle. Just one of those things. Feel sorry for O’Neil, but he has no more right to sue than I do.
Reply
The tackle was from the side (legal). Reo-Coker played the ball with the inside of his foot (legal). His momentum (unavoidable) resulted in the contact with O’Neil. It was a legal challenge that didn’t spur the well-placed official into calling it a foul, let alone a bookable offence. Looking at a still picture and making judgement is not only ill-advised and inaccurate, but sheer stupidity.
Reply
Reo-Coker won the ball yes but he did so in a manner that suggests he did want to ‘leave his mark’ on O’Neil. He certainly didn’t have to build up the momentum lke that but chose to for affect… It’s like the ‘dump tackle’ in rugby which has since been banned… Rugby players used to hoist the oppostition player into the air then ‘dump’ them back onto the ground, yes they were winning the ball back but the authorities realised the risk in this kind of tackle… It looked good though & pleased the crowd but essentially un-called for… in the same way you can slide tackle a player in football without ‘following’ through… Re-Coker used to be my fav player at West Ham (before the fall out) & even I would think some of his challenges were ‘over the top’… The challenge was fair by the letter of the law on O’Neil but showed no sportsmanship or class with the momentum he used to plow on through himm… it’s why Reo-Coker will never play for England or a top Premiership team, simply no class.
Reply
Azad Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Haha, looking at a still picture and deciding if RC is guilty. That made my day!!
You could see a hundred still pics and see a hundred different thing!!
Im a villa fan but not a fan of RC but if you decide a players class by the way they tackle then have you seen Scholes’ tackles and Rooney goes into tackle with great aggression.
The classless people are those who think he’s right to sue!! you guys know nothing about football.
Reply
David Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Daniel
you have no class. RC was your favourite player but because you are still bitter about his leaving you feel differently. Muppet
Reply
Reece Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
I think you have to lookat from both sides. Im a massive West Ham fan and what has happened is obviously a massive blow to us. I saw the tackle live and on TV many times, I dont think RC set out to end O’neils career but there is no doubt that it was a terrible tackle and had a decent amount of venom in it. But.. Football is bad enough already without players thinking they might get sued for every tackle they commit. I remember the game being a lot, lot rougher 10 years ago and no one seemed to complain. Overall its a s**t situation for O’Neil and for West Ham. There is no clear cut answer, I mean what would you tell O’Neil if he cant play again.. Ever!? Its a massive blow for a young pro like him, these guys put there whole life into football to play at that level and know little else. This doesnt mean I support a law suit but it does mean that eveyone should’t be so quick to dismiss this as ridiculous. I certainly know that if it was a man utd or chelsea player it would hold a different response and probably a much different outcome. You only have to look at the Collett vs Smith case to see that. Nothing will come from this, even if they go ahead with the case. But one thing is for sure, West Ham will suffer because of it and a talented footballer could loose everything. A bad situation all around really.
Reply
This article is really scare-mongering – it has thus far proved almost impossible for a footballer to win a negligence action against another footballer for a foul tackle, with just a handful of successful actions – the law sets the bar very high to win such an action. There have actually been very very few successful actions in all sport in this country. Floodgates are not going to open, even if there is a successful action. The award to Ben Collett did not raise any particular issues with the scale of compensation – when you take into account pain and suffering and loss of earnings they were set at a very reasonable level. No intent is needed by the player – what is required is reasonable behaviour – if the foul tackle is something that is generally expected/accepted in a game of football then it will not be deemed to be negligent and it sounds like Reo-Coker’s tackle was not out of the realms of what may be expected to happen on the football pitch, therefore O’Neil is highly unlikely to win any action should he initiate one
Reply