Assault?

Young footballer on trial for rude foul

In soccer, things often get rough - was it too rough?(Bild: matimix)

Unusual trial at Innsbruck Regional Court: A 16-year-old caused his opponent to tear a ligament during a soccer match. The court now had to decide whether this constituted grievous bodily harm.

It could not have been an attack of frustration, as the defendant's team was 3:0 ahead. Nevertheless, the teenager "sabered" his opponent during an U-16 soccer match in Tyrol in the fall. "Intentionally with an outstretched leg against the ankle", the indictment specified. The result was a torn ligament in the opponent - a charge of grievous bodily harm and now a trial at the regional court.

Asking the coach for the green light for a foul
Rude fouls are common in soccer, so why did this one end up in court? The defendant had previously asked his coach, who is of Turkish origin, for the "green light" to foul, and the other coach, who also understands Turkish, was also given permission. This was the main reason why the club did not let the ligament rupture of its young player rest on its laurels and pressed charges.

If even things like this end in charges in future, then soon there will only be criminals running around.

Der Verteidiger des 16-Jährigen

"We were just running shoulder to shoulder," the defendant claimed, adding that his opponent's ankle had somehow been damaged in the course of the duel. The prosecutor, on the other hand, referred to witnesses: "The foul happened without any chance of getting the ball." The referee, on the other hand, was unable to contribute to establishing the truth, stating that he had not seen the situation closely enough.

Defense lawyer: "A completely normal duel"
The 16-year-old's defense lawyer shouted almost indignantly in his closing statement: "If even things like this end in charges in future, then there will only be criminals running around." A duel like this is "the most normal situation" on a soccer pitch.

Foul does not mean intent to injure
The judge did not make the case easy for himself and asked for a few minutes to reach a verdict. Ultimately, he ruled an acquittal in case of doubt, which has already become legally binding. He added the following reasoning: "The coach's consent to a foul is by no means an indication of intent to injure. And I cannot determine what the player was thinking when he committed the foul."