Hi Oakwell

The usual rules of RIDDOR do apply.

Which for this case means NOT reportable as it is not a "work-related accident".

RIDDOR includes for cases of "non consensual violence" to come within scope, but as you indicate rugby is a contact sport, so the violence is implicitly consented to.

Well it might be consented to, but only up to a point.

I once sat through a criminal trial of a young man who was accused of injuring another young man in a football tackle.

Admittedly, he was acquitted.

This made my wee pedant eye twitch…always great advice Peter however while it’s correct that RIDDOR is not about attributing blame or determining illegality, your interpretation being presented here oversimplifies the treatment of violence and conflates “deliberate assault” with non-reportability in a way that isn’t supported by RIDDOR 2013 or HSE guidance.

RIDDOR does include deliberate acts where they result in injury to someone at work Most “deliberate assaults” fall outside RIDDOR, well as I am sure you are aware, that is only true if they do not result in an injury that meets one of the reportable outcome criteria. RIDDOR explicitly states:

“Accident” includes an act of non-consensual physical violence to a person at work.

There is no qualification here that certain types of assault are excluded. If a person at work suffers a specified injury, over-7-day injury, or hospitalisation due to violence, the reportability criteria are met — regardless of motive, intent, or whether police get involved.

HSE’s own guidance reinforces this. For example:

• Injuries caused by physical violence are reportable, including those arising from intentional acts (e.g., assaults on teachers, NHS staff, retail workers, security personnel).
• The only exclusions relate to verbal abuse, threats without physical contact, or injuries sustained in incidents not arising out of or in connection with work.

So to imply there is a broad exemption for deliberate assault is a wee bit misleading.

The “referee example” is correct — but the same logic also applies to many workplace assaults If a referee is “at work,” then yes, violence is in scope. But the same is true for:

• A teacher struck by a pupil
• A care worker attacked by a resident
• A customer service employee assaulted by a member of the public
• A maintenance worker struck by a colleague in a dispute

These are routinely reported under RIDDOR because they meet both the “violence = accident” definition and the injury criteria.

The comparison with a reckless sports challenge misunderstands “arising out of or in connection with work” The key difference is not “assault vs recklessness,” but whether the injured party is at work. Amateur player vs amateur player is not the same as an employee carrying out their work duties. If both individuals are participating recreationally, then of course it’s not reportable — but that’s because the activity isn’t work, not because deliberate acts are somehow excluded.

Police involvement is irrelevant to RIDDOR Whether an incident could interest the police has zero bearing on RIDDOR reportability. Some violence-related RIDDOR injuries will interest the police. Others will not. That does not change the duty to report.

You are suggesting:

• Most deliberate assaults are “outside scope”
• Reportability depends on something other than injury outcome + being at work
• Violence is treated differently unless a “specific condition” is met

In reality:

• Violence causing injury to a person at work is within scope
• Deliberate acts are not excluded
• If the injury meets the RIDDOR thresholds, it is reportable regardless of intent
• Police relevance is not a RIDDOR factor

A more accurate statement would be:

“Violence against people at work is included within RIDDOR where it causes a specified injury, an over-7-day injury, or results in hospital treatment. The intent behind the act does not remove the duty to report.”

Steve

I think you are trying to read my last post completely out of the context of the thread which is about the sporting environment.

I quoted from the definitions in RIDDOR:

“accident” includes an act of non-consensual physical violence done to a person at work;

Of course, if somebody goes into a shop and thumps a retail worker and they sustain harm that meets one of the thresholds of RIDDOR, then that incident falls within scope. Ditto other scenarios that you have presented, but none of these are the sporting environment that this particular thread is about.

However, if we are to expand the context of the thread I am a little surprised that you have deferred to HSE guidance rather than interpreting what the law actually says.

Suppose a member of the public walks into a shop and screams blue murder at a retail worker who is as a result harmed and is off work with stress for "over 7 days" why would this NOT be reportable as the HSE guidance suggests that it isn't?

Again to quote from the law, not what HSE would like you to believe:

(2) Where any person at work is incapacitated for routine work for more than seven consecutive days (excluding the day of the accident) because of an injury resulting from an accident arising out of or in connection with that work, the responsible person must send a report to the relevant enforcing authority in an approved manner as soon as practicable and in any event within 15 days of the accident.

There is nothing in these words here that says that the person at work has to be incapacitated due to an "injury" that has physical manifestations.

The word "injury" is not defined in RIDDOR. 

Standard rules of legal interpretation say that if a word is not defined in Regulations then your first default is to look at the parent legislation, in this case, HSWA, and if not there to however the word is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary.

HSWA doesn't have a definition for "injury" but instead has one for "personal injury"

" personal injury " includes any disease and any impairment of a person's physical or mental condition;

OK we might possibly think that because of the added word this is not good enough so then to OED, which uses various words to describe "injury" including "harm".

Now unless you are going to argue that this stress requiring time off from work is not "harm" then it seems that the HSE guidance is based on accidental or deliberate misrepresentation of the legal requirements.

Quite odd that HSE seems entirely comfortable with concluding that the scope of e.g. Section 2 of HSWA includes for protecting against harm to mental health - hence e.g. its Stress Management Standards (even if seems reluctant to use these to support enforcement - but chooses an opposite position in its RIDDOR guidance when it comes to e.g. verbal aggession against people at work.

You helpfully quoted the HSE guidance for me!

• The only exclusions relate to verbal abuse, threats without physical contact, or injuries sustained in incidents not arising out of or in connection with work.

So, in effect HSE has said that it does think that RIDDOR should cover the case of the nurse being thumped but not the case where someone only threatens to batter the nurse, even though they then suffer harm!!

If I had opened a bank account specifically to hold the £10 I was given for each time I have had to write on these Forums that one should always interpret RIDDOR by reading the Regulations and not via HSE's guidance that account would be looking rather healthy!

It appears to suit HSE to discourage taking a full interpretation of what RIDDOR says falls within scope. Reduces the total number of reportabe incidents, means that they don't get to hear about some incidents that they are not that interested in and saves time on data entry.

The first of these reasons is arguably the most serious as it is the one that is most likely to result in skewing of UK numbers in any international "benchmarking", so as to help make the UK look like a better performer than it may be.

IF HSE really believe that if someone suffers ill health (that meets a RIDDOR threshold) as a result of verbal aggression to a worker should not be covered by RIDDOR, then the answer is to make the case to the Minister to amend the Regulations, not to try and deter reporting/recording via guidance that has ZERO legal authority.

Edited by user 10 November 2025 11:49:30(UTC)  | Reason: Clarification

Originally Posted by: Oakwell9876

Hi,

I’m looking for some guidance. Would a sports student (aged 16–19) at a college who breaks their collarbone while playing rugby be considered a RIDDOR-reportable incident? The injury is confirmed as a fracture, and the student has undergone surgery to have a plate fitted.

Given the full-contact nature of rugby, do the usual injury reporting rules still apply in this case?

Yes, this incident is RIDDOR-reportable. The student, though not an employee, is classed as a person not at work under RIDDOR. A fracture (except fingers, thumbs, or toes) is a specified injury and must be reported. Since the injury occurred during a college-organised, supervised rugby activity, the college is responsible for reporting it. The fact that rugby is a full-contact sport does not exempt it from reporting. The incident must be reported to the HSE within 10 days, and all records should be maintained by the college.

Originally Posted by: Syed Neyaz Ahmad

Yes, this incident is RIDDOR-reportable.

One of the nice things about the HSE web site is you can often find clarification:

https://www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/examples-reportable-incidents.htm

Q. Are sporting injuries reportable?

A. No, most are not, since they arise out of the normal participation in a sporting activity (eg a heavy tackle in football). Only report injuries if they arise out of or in connection with a work activity, such as those due to defective equipment or failings in the organisation and management of an event.

Q. Are accidents to pupils sustained in PE lessons reportable under RIDDOR?

A. No, most are not. Such accidents only require reporting if: the pupil is killed or taken to hospital for treatment to an injury (ie not as a precautionary measure) and the accident was work-related in that it arose out of or in connection with the work of the school or college, rather than as a consequence of the normal risks associated with participation in physical activities. For example, if the accident was caused by faulty equipment or inadequate supervision