THE consequences of a bad tempered rugby match in 1991, in which a young man was paralysed and subsequently sued the referee for £1 million, will have far reaching implications.

That is the bleak assessment off defence lawyers and officials for the English Rugby Football Union (RFU), following a successful High Court compensation case in London yesterday, brought by the former player, Ben Smoldon.

"Who is going to referee a match if they are going to be sued if there is an accident?" asked the president of the British Association of Sport and the Law, Edward Grayson. "Schools and schoolmasters who do the job on a voluntary basis could be at risk as well. Referees, sporting organisations and schools will have to make sure they are well insured before they go into a game," he warned.

Smoldon, now 21, was paralysed from the shoulders down and has been confined to a wheelchair since the accident in October 1991. At the time he was a 17 year old prop and captain of Sutton Coldfield Under 19 Colts playing against their rivals the Burton upon Trent Colts.

The match was described in the courts as "characterised by two players being sent off, and constantly collapsing scrums."

During the hearing, Mr Justice Curtis heard that a touchline official had warned the referee Michael Nolan, that a front row player would be hurt if he did not intervene. While Nolan said that he agreed with the statement, he added that he "could not see who was to blame".

New laws governing scrums were introduced by the RFU in 1991. A particular aspect of the new law was that scrums must "crouch, touch, pause, and then engage" to lessen the risk of the scrum collapsing. It was the failure to understand this new law, and the failure to enforce it by the referee, which lead to Smoldon's injury, Justice Curtis said.

"In important respects relating to scrums, the referee failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in preventing their collapse by instructing the front rows and in the use of crouch, touch, pause, engage."

"This caused the collapse of the relevant scrum and was likely to cause Mr Smoldon's injury. In the circumstances of the previous events of the game, this was foreseeable," Justice Curtis said.

Nolan's solicitors issued a statement saying that he is "deeply disappointed" by the decision and is considering an appeal. "While each case of this nature turns on its own particular facts, the implication which this decision has for refereeing in sport in general needs to be carefully considered," the statement read.

The RFU yesterday sought to calm its referees, who fear the judgment will mean similar legal action will be brought against them if players are injured. They issued a statement reminding referees that they are insured by public liability insurance.

"Since 1993, programmes have been designed and promulgated based upon the principles of refereeing safely, with the care of every player in mind and within the laws of the game," the RFU statement said.

In the wake of Smoldon's case, the future of refereeing, with the potential of huge insurance claims resulting from injuries, is certainly a risky activity, according to Grayson.

The court's decision to grant compensation, the amount of which is yet to be decided, will prove a very expensive business for schools and small rugby clubs who may not be able to afford insurance for a volunteer referee.