It’s actually quite difficult to relate to a sportsman. Not because of the fact that he might be famous or that he might seem to be socially awkward. It’s the fact that their whole livelihood, their being, their image or even their personality derives from that unique talent that he possess and the others don’t, making him a sportsman.
And when the whole life of a person depends upon a single factor that 99 percent of the time is that physicality that separates him from the pool is taken away or even the thought of it being taken away will scare the pants off of these people. The thought alone is unbearable.
An injury can end a player’s career or put him behind the competition, days months or years, but will never be a positive thing. In the unfortunate event of an injury what happens is that the players are told that you have signed a contract and it clearly demands your consent and that is that no compensation for you.
This general acceptance of this common knowledge led to the unjust results where matters went way ahead than simple consent rather negligence on part of either team management or match officials.
This complete lack of responsibility was tackled recently in a decided case the facts of which included a rugby player getting badly injured and the match official’s negligence in the course of those events was very evident on the face of it. However the problem remained about the player consenting to contact, rugby being a contact sport.
The court rejected this proposition and held that the referee in the match owed a duty towards the players and their health and well being, and that if a player under their judgment is or will be unable to cope with the physicality of the play he has to stop the play.
Though this whole idea of the referee himself knowing when or when not to stop play is very subjective and is open to a lot of debate the idea is that now the traditional view being, consent vitiating all other factors, has changed and the courts are open to immense possibilities and are willing to bend for the public thus making it possible for a sportsman to be compensated for something that he could not even dream of 10 years ago because at the end of the day we have to understand and be able to relate if not complete, then to the point that we understand what it means to these sportsmen, and the courts recognizing this and endorsing this idea tell a lot about the evolution of the rights of the public and the development of the society for better and definitely not for worse.