CPS has announced that John Terry is to be prosecuted in relation to the alleged use of racist language to Anton Ferdinand, following "a complaint from a member of the public".

The charge isOn 23 October 2011 at Loftus Road Stadium, London W12, you used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress which was racially aggravated in accordance with section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Contrary to section 31 (1) (c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998'"

What did Evra do exactly?

Apart from being his usual cheating self? Nothing.

Surely you have to enforce the criminal law above any sport rules and regulations though ?

The penalty that Luis Suárez has been handed by the FA is their own ruling according to their own regulations, they cannot be used in leui of the criminal law if a criminal offence is committed, they may be taken into consideration by a judge but you're surely not suggesting that a judge can simply dismiss a case on the grounds that he's already suffered enough by not being allowed to play football for eight weeks (no indication of whether he will still be paid?) ?

Its the norm in the corrupt game - a game where the majority of players, professional or amateur will deliberately cheat and feign transgressions in order to have their opponents penalised and it doesn't even depend on how much money is riding on those decisions these days - you see the same cheating tactics employed in your local Sunday leagues.

And the commentators call it "The Beautiful Game".

My A[irs[/ie.

A very high profile Rangers player once went to prison for serious transgression on the football pitch.

Duncan Ferguson, for headbutting John McStay? I don't think it was punished on the field either.

From what I remember didn't Big Dunc have previous for assault which was why he ended up in prison for it?

But as evidenced by the fact that hundreds of incidents occur on national TV that would get your collar felt if you did them anywhere else, we know there's a clear understanding that despite plain crimes happening before the eyes of dozens of police officers, they are directed to (almost) never intervene, and prosecutions are (almost) never brought.

The occasional prosecution of the occasional footballer who (for example) lays out an opponent with a punch, miles after the ball has gone, are the exception that very clearly highlights the rule.

Yet here there's an exception, and the only added factor that I can see is that the alleged offence is said to have been "racially aggravated". Now, I don't think that a word or a phrase can aggravate itself; so let's say that the complete complained of phrase was "you f?g black c**t". This must mean that the shorter phrase ""you f?g c**t" constitutes the public order offence. And is then aggravated by the addition of "black". (Which obviously does, aggravate it; I'm not disputing that - and the law confirms it) - but it only aggravates it by upping the max. pen. by 1 fine Level. So yes, legally officially worse, but not so much worse.

Whereas a reckless late tackle causing grievous bodily harm (such as a compound double leg fracture), an offence under s.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861, carries up to 5 years jail. Ditto ABH, which includes "loss or breaking of teeth; temporary loss of consciousness extensive or multiple bruising; displaced / broken nose; minor fractures; cuts requiring medical treatment such as stitches" - we see those sorts of incidents fairly regularly in rugby league. Why would lesser offences lead to criminal prosecution, but manifestly far more serious offences not?

I thought maybe wrongly that Big Dunc was done for the head butt and other factors played a part in the prison sentance and not some community punishment.

Could the issue here be proving intent? I guess it might be difficult to prove that a bad tackle resulting in an injury was intentional to a sufficient degree for a criminal prosecution, whereas it's fairly difficult to deny intentionally uttering an offensive word or phrase.

Intent is a good distinction. There is a big difference between breaking someone's jaw in the process of making a tackle (albeit a foul), and attacking someone on the field after the whistle or outside of the normal course of play.

I shall have to refer to my daughters extensive library (courtesy of her last three years student loans ) of sports law but just browsing the "DIY Lawyer" style web sites it would appear that while there is no exemption from sports participants (pro or amateur) being liable for their behaviour on field, there is a "taking into account" of the circumstances so that a bad tackle resulting in physical injury which will be in contravention of the games laws won't necessarily be considered as a criminal act even if you doing the same thing to someone outside any pub on a Friday night might well be - context and consent being taken into account.

At what level does intent also become irrelevant? Manslaughter for instance can be punished with zero intent.

I must admit I've often wondered if, had certain fights in certain sports taken place outside of a pub on Friday night, what charges and punishments would have been brought about.

Which begs the question, why is it OK to fight on a sports field during a game, but not OK to fight any other time?

Which is why I used the case of a s.20 wounding, where the ingredient is recklessness. And there's a difference between intending to stiff-arm a player off the ball and intending to break his jaw.

One good rugby league example would be a player designated to cynically take out the opposition's kicker, however late the challenge may be. The intent is to clatter and hopefully ruin the game of the kicker, however long ago the ball went, and is a clear and blatant assault. Leave aside those challenges which are 'debatable' or only fractionally late, or so-called "committed", just take the case of the blatant ones. Let's say a kicker ended up getting hurt to the extent he could not continue in that game.

Let's say the offender then said to his injured opponent, "Have that, you f?g whitey c**t.

What is the argument for not prosecuting the offender for a serious physical assault, for which he could be jailed, but prosecuting him for the less serious public order charge, for which he can only be fined?