I write as a sports lover and as a lawyer. I write lest the legal profession as a whole be accused of misleading the public – who may sometimes be deemed to be gullible in certain subjects.

I refer to press reports relating to the recent violent acts after a local football match and to comments on legal matters thereon.

Tackles, especially if rough and/or accidental, as well as collisions during a match, can result in bodily injuries. This behaviour in the ordinary run of the sport is part and parcel of the game, accepted by one and all, and not punishable by procedures other than those taken by a referee during a match.

However, bodily injuries caused out of ordinary normal play during a match are unacceptable – indeed as are all other bodily injuries willingly caused by third parties. This is what the law provides. Zinedine Zidane and his headbutt and whether criminal procedures have been taken or not against him are completely irrelevant and inapplicable. So much for violent acts causing bodily harm during (or outside) a match. If the principle that injuries can be freely caused out of the normal course of play during a game is accepted, and were to be allowed, then any player can attack any opponent – kick him, punch him or outright strangle him with impunity.

The second legal fallacy that is being bandied about is the claimed doubt whether a decision of the court applies if it is inconsistent with a decision of the respective national body etc. I refer to the court order banning a person from attending specific premises. When pronouncing itself either in a judgment or in a decree relative to conditions of bail, the court has total and sole jurisdiction and its pronouncement is applicable throughout the land. No other decision, whether by a national body (sports, commercial, philanthropic or NGO) can affect in any manner the decision of the court.

The above has to be stated so that the legal position is clear to one and all and so that the sporting public is informed in making its judgment. This will avoid any incorrect (or absurd) views whether genuine or otherwise.