KEANO - THE LEGAL CASE

Last updated : 19 August 2002 By eDITOR

Dunphy told The Observer: "I'm as much responsible for that. I should take the rap, but he won't let me."

Dunphy also played down the severity of the midfielder's tackle on Haaland and claims Steven Gerrard's tackle on Patrick Vieira in the Community Shield was just as bad.

He said: "Gerrard said that he was trying to make an impression. That's the way the game is. And now they want to crucify Roy."

The Guardian sought some answers about the Keane case from sports lawyer Nick Bitel:

Will Haaland's case be hampered by the fact that he has played since the tackle?

It makes things less clear-cut and suggests that this one injury has not caused him to end his career. He would have to establish that Roy Keane's tackle was the one that has stopped him playing for so long, and that may be difficult given his appearances since.

Under what law would this action be brought?

In this particular case, Haaland could sue Keane for assault. Most previous cases involve negligence - such as the recent unsuccessful case brought by the former Crystal Palace midfielder Darren Pitcher, who suffered a knee injury against Huddersfield in 1996 but failed to convince a court last year that the club was negligent. In these cases, the victims have been hurt when their opponent has been reckless or negligent and thereby injured them. The same law would be used if someone had been knocked down by a careless driver.

But in this case Haaland could go further and claim the tackle was not negligent but deliberate, and should be deemed as assault. Electing to press that charge is a high-risk strategy, because the standard of proof is much higher. If the action is fought on negligence, all Haaland will have to prove is that the tackle was below an acceptable standard.

Given what has been written in Keane's book, is the intent not clear?

I suspect Keane would argue there was a bit of artistic licence in the editing of the book. The book was ghost-written, so that might give Keane an edge in claiming it was not what he said. He could argue that those were not his exact words or that they were taken out of context. The book alone is not going to prove Haaland's case.

Combined with Dunphy’s comments it looks like ciddeh have made a massive mistake, what price would you get for Chris Bird getting the sack?