The problem for Flower is that in most cases it is hard to judge intent.
In this case he hit him in retaliation and it was a sweet hit so knocked him out.
You know if you connect well with a punch.
He then stood over him looked right in his eyes and hit him again. The camera could see what he saw so there is no doubt that Flower should have known he was defenceless.
There was plenty of time to pull out, he chose not to.
That will be what hurts him when judgement comes.

Didn't a football player get jail for an assault during a match a few years ago ???
Flower seemed to me to deliberately go to break ohia's nose
That amounts to GBH !!
So Mr Flower may well get a court appearance to his name

Duncan Fergison for head butting playing for Rangers about 15 years ago. Hope the police don't get involved as it sets a president and every week we will have fans citing opposition players to be arrested and sent down.

Hohaia doesn't look to be pressing charges and just because it is on telly doesn't make it GBH.

If you want I can give a proper legal analysis of the potential for charges, just for clarity, but please note that I am expressing no opinion as to what or should happen.

Firstly, it is unlikely to be grievous bodily harm, unless it transpires there is a fracture. It is, if anything, actual bodily harm (the charge below grievous bodily harm) based on the unconsciousness. But this is where it gets murky, because to charge that you'd need to prosecute based upon the whole incident, as the act that causes the actual bodily harm (the unconsciousness) is the first punch, but that is all part of the rough and tumble of rugby league. So could you prosecute based on just the second punch? No, because you can't subdivide like that. You can't say, "we'll ignore the punch where he knocks a man out but prosecute him for the punch where there is no proof of injury". If you did that, you could only really charge a common assault, because the sickening punch has seemingly caused no injury.

That is all for someone else at a different desk, but what can be taken into account is the context (a physical sport) and the alternative punishments available, as well as the views of the victim. For example, someone might say that there is enough evidence to prosecute but the public interest doesn't demand it, as:
1. the most physically damaging act was part of what happens in sports like rugby league, and that the players consent to that risk
2. the player has been punished significantly by the ruling body and his employers, and that the courts will add little to that.

Equally, someone might say that there is enough evidence to prosecute and that despite all other factors, the incident was so serious that only prosecution could be justified, that if on a high street it could well attract a prison sentence.

Quote: REDWHITEANDBLUE "The police get involved with the ameteur game the bottom line is this went beyond biff if that was on Westgate he could be going to gaol for that. You only have to see the negative publicity this has brought to the game. Disgraceful and an apology is little in return for the damage and reputation of him his club and if the RL don't have a backbone the game too.'" www.bristolpost.co.uk/Keynsham-R ... story.html

Quote: REDWHITEANDBLUE "The police get involved with the ameteur game the bottom line is this went beyond biff if that was on Westgate he could be going to gaol for that. You only have to see the negative publicity this has brought to the game. Disgraceful and an apology is little in return for the damage and reputation of him his club and if the RL don't have a backbone the game too.'" www.bristolpost.co.uk/Keynsham-R ... story.html

Where Flower has got problems is that the harsher the RFL are on him, the less likely that a prosecution would follow (i.e., the effect of his actions on himself can be a factor to consider), so the RFL are likely to go to town on him. To see a player in court would tarnish the name of rugby league, that is without question, so they are going to be tough if they think it will lessen that risk, particularly if leniency is a factor in taking the matter to court. Flower will be made an example of, without question. If I was in charge of the RFL, I would be hellbent on keeping it in-house, to protect the game, so I would make the punishment long and hard. The last thing you would want is a player in court because you have been seen to be weak.

12 matches and a large fine, with Flower doing some community work or talking in schools about the effects of not thinking first and reacting violently.

Pure conjecture, but if it did go to court, I wonder what they'd make of Shaun Wane's 'inspiring' team talk on the WCC documentary, where he incites his players to "knock em out," and "get reckless?" <swearing removed but you can work out for yourselves where it goes>

For me, this should be the catalyst that forces the RFL to take control of the game back from unscrupulous coaches like Wane, and Maguire before him; the brand of RL they advocate is ugly, vicious and unedifying; and because it's been allowed to go largely unchecked, it's culminated in RL's showcase event being marred by an act of thuggery that has, quite rightly, created a storm of negative publicity that will cause serious damage to our reputation.

Nothing to do with the RFL if GMP decide its in the public interest then he may get arrested or interviewed not under arrest a file will be submitted to the CPS to decide. On the assault this is made out however there is also public order offences to consider especially affray if you look up the definition you will see it fits the incident.

Agreed -12 games. Can't condone that second punch.

First one is the best punch I've seen on a RL pitch. That would warrant a SO and 3-4 game ban on its own, but it was impressive!

You're wrong, in part.

Although you are right in relation to whether it is a matter for the police (and then the CPS), the RFL can influence the decision. In assessing the public interest, the penalty imposed by another body can be taken into consideration, as can the views of those involved. The victim has said he's bears no malice and I expect he does not support a court case. Saints have said they will see what the outcome of it all it before they make a decision, so it sounds like they will let it lie if Flower cops for a proper punishment. If the RFL comes down heavy, it is less likely that a court case will follow, which is where it is a matter for them. If you look at the GMP tweet, they said they were working "with" the RFL, not looking at interviewing anyone. So the RFL will be under no illusion that they have to come down hard to avoid a player being taken to court following an incident in the highest profile game of the year.

It's not an affray. If you look at the definition of affray, it states that it occurs when a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene would fear violence. The case of R-v-Sanchez (199icon_cool.gif made it clear that the purpose of an affray is to protect an innocent bystander, not the person being attacked, as an assault charge can be used then. To give an example, someone hits someone in a pub, it's an assault. But if it spreads, and chairs start flying, it is an affray too, as anyone there is at risk of being hit. Or when one group attacks another group.

As I said earlier, the tricky part is deciding the level of assault. The punch that is the problem caused no apparent injury, so it is a common assault, and is there a merit in a low-level charge when the defendant has already been significantly punished by the game's governing body? But you can't dissect an attack like that, so you have to look at everything, and everything up until that second punch was just routine rugby stuff.

OK without having a legal battle there were 70,000+people of reasonable firmness present at the scene who by the actions could have feared violence, if people are fighting innocent bystanders can fear for there safety the crowd is no different. As soon as he punched the opposition the assault and battery is made out the CPS would assess the level of charge based on the injury and intent etc, to my mind there is plenty of intent available through the media. I disagree with you that a criminal court would take a penalty from another body into consideration although I do accept it could be part of any mitigation. We will see how it pans out but the bottom line is its not good for the sport in any shape or form.

You are challenging slugger with a legal point ?

You're wrong. I don't mind having a legal discussion. I've been a Senior Crown Prosecutor for sixteen years, I have them every day. I enjoy them. The innocent bystander has to fear violence against themselves, and no one of reasonable firmness in that crowd believed that Ben Flower was about to start attacking the crowd. It isn't about whether the bystander would fear violence being used per se, but violence against themselves. There are frequently situations where affray would be very convenient but can't be used because it is just two people fighting.

You are right that the response of the RFL is relevant in a court for mitigation only, but the discussion was about whether it should be taken to court, not what would happen when he got there. The response of the RFL, as well as the views of the victim, are relevant for that decision. For example, if common assault is the preferred charge, you would be entitled to consider the whole point of a court case where the sentence (other than the prospect of prison) would be nowhere near that imposed by the RFL. The point of Eric Cantona's appeal for the crowd incident (which he won) was that he should not be made an example of but should be treated as a man of no previous convictions or cautions (which would apply to Flower, I presume). Add in the more combative nature of rugby league and the preceding incident, what penalty would be imposed? Those are relevant considerations, and those involved in the decision will take into account what the RFL do in making it.

As an example, let's say a bloke gets involves in an argument and punches someone. Straight assault, prosecute, no issue. But what if the victim doesn't want the person prosecuted, and the assailant was provoked, and the impact of a prosecution would cost him his job, and then his home so he can't pay the mortgage? Don't prosecute. All part of the public interest test.

Seriously? I was there. I did not fear any violence from Flower's punch. I'm slow but I reckon I could have avoided him if he'd come my way from section 2402.

The problem with this incident is that it was on tv at a major event, so everyone suddenly becomes a solicitor and judge. Same as those that watch X Factor, Strictly and Dancing on Ice, in 5 minutes viewing know more than the professionals about a pirouette and grand jete.

There is no doubt Flower had time to pull out of the second punch given Hohaia was out cold, but equally, in the heat of the incident, people don't always act in the same way they do when watching tv in an arm chair.
I can honestly say, if I was Flower and Hohaia had done what he did to me, I'd have punched him too. The way he got off so quickly after the second showed he knew what he had done but it's too late then. (Clearly in my case my punch would not have knocked him out and I'd have probably been battered in return but you do what you do in the heat of action)

If this gets to a criminal process of any kind, sport in general will be affected.
Should Roy Keane have been convicted for a potential career ending foul on Haaland? He admitted in his book what he was trying to do.
Should a rugby Union forward, using his studs to get the ball be convicted of assault? Drawing blood in that situation is pretty easy (following the rules) but if you did it in the street it would be an assault and possible GBH.

There is a lot to consider.
Best case for me. Flower gets a decent ban (imho 8 games is enough) and to be honest, Hohaia should get something for an off the ball incident. Probably a fine. You can't say "concussion sufficient punishment" in this case.