So if context is not taken into account in the case of an assault. Surely rugby can only exist through the goodwill of the participents and the indifference of the police. Whether a tackle is late or not has no bearing on its criminality, it only reflects on its interpretation within the rules of the sport which are apparently irrelevent.

Interesting that intent has been raised, who can honestly say the haven't intended to hurt someone when going in for a big hit. It doesnt have to be done outside the laws of the game, but theres numerous tackles in every game where the intent is to put the recipient on his ar$e with enough force to make him thing twice about running in your direction again. Does this constitute a criminal offense?

He'd been done for assault before, more than once. The ref at the game missed it and the SFA used video evidence to ban him later for 10 or 12 matches iirc.

Personally, if I were a teacher or in a profession under similar duress and threat of summary dismissal on the word of another, then I would find myself a union with a record of defending its members properly in an employment tribunal - possibly that is the reason why teaching and other civil service unions are still quite strong ?

No, because it starts off with the winning card that it is a "lawful activity". Boxing has managed (to date) to retain a legal get out of jail card, on the grounds that boxing [iper se[/i is a lawful activity. And that legal classification makes all the difference, because even when violence is intentionally inflicted and results in actual bodily harm, wounding or serious bodily harm there is no offence committed if the injury was a foreseeable incident of a lawful activity in which the person injured was participating.

This lawful status was very much a split decision.

There is no intellectual justification making boxing legal though many have tried. It is just it has become widely accepted (though by no means unanimously) as useful to society, and professional boxing rides immune on the back of that (for now). The issue in the case of boxing is simply whether it is a "lawful activity", and in the past, the Courts have on balance held that it is.

It was never a unanimous view. In a venerable 1803 legal tome, referring to violent physical pursuits such as wrestling, prize-fighting and boxing, East saidthe latitude given to manly exercises of the nature above described, when conducted merely as diversions among friends, must not be extended to legalise prize-fighting, public boxing matches and the like, which are exhibited for the sake of lucre, and are calculated to draw together a number of idle disorderly people[/i..."

Many would, two centuries later, concede he had a point.

The court commented in BrownThat the court is in such cases making a value-judgment, not dependant
upon any general theory of consent is exposed by the failure of any attempt
to deduce why professional boxing appears to be immune from prosecution.
For money, not recreation or personal improvement, each boxer tries to hurt
the opponent more than he is hurt himself, and aims to end the contest
prematurely by inflicting a brain injury serious enough to make the opponent
unconscious, or temporarily by impairing his central nervous system through
a blow to the midriff, or cutting his skin to a degree which would ordinarily
be well within the scope of section 20. The boxers display skill, strength and
courage, but nobody pretends that they do good to themselves or others. The
onlookers derive entertainment, but none of the physical and moral benefits
which have been seen as the fruits of engagement in manly sports. I intend no
disrespect to the valuable judgment of McInearny J. in Pallante v. Stadiums Pty.
1976] V.R. 331[an Australian decision] when I say that the heroic efforts of that
learned judge to arrive at an intellectually satisfying account of the apparent immunity
of professional boxing from criminal process have convinced me that the task is
impossible. It is in my judgment best to regard this as another special situation
which for the time being stands outside the ordinary law of violence because
society chooses to tolerate it.[/i"

Slightly off point, but would a similar case to Brown be decided the same if it came before the Supreme Court today? It's almost a 20 year old ruling now and there's some pretty old fashioned views on show from the majority. It was decided largely on the basis of the protection of morals, at a time when AIDS was probably still a big talking point. It's interesting reading the differences in opinion from the majority and the dissenting judgments - can't help but think that 20 years later, that case would have gone the other way...

It comes down to whether an observer would feel personally threatened. In a boxing match the participants are ringed off from the speccies as are fans at a rugby match. The difference between those types of fights and say a pub brawl is that the latter is much more likely to spill over and result in injury to innocent bystanders.