Personal Injury

“Run It Straight” is a recently popularised sport in which two competitors run at each other on a 20m x 4m field, and the competitor who dominates the collision wins. While it went viral on social media, the sport is also run through commercial competitions such as the RUNIT League and the Run Nation Championship.

However, the emerging and often unregulated nature of the sport has sparked significant concern.

In May 2025, a 19-year-old man died in Palmerston North, New Zealand, after suffering a serious head injury during an informal Run It Straight game. The week before, at an organised RUNIT event in Auckland, two participants were knocked unconscious, and one appeared to suffer a seizure after being hit.

The NSW Supreme Court decision

Run Nation had planned an event at Royal Randwick Racecourse on 12 September 2026. The NSW Combat Sports Authority had raised concerns with the organisers from 29 May 2026, and later cancelled the event. Run Nation challenged that decision in the NSW Supreme Court, arguing that Run It Straight was not a combat sport under the Combat Sports Act 2013 (NSW) and that the contact was akin to a tackle.

On 10 September 2026, two days before the scheduled event, Justice Andrew Coleman dismissed Run Nation’s challenge and upheld the Authority’s decision. Justice Coleman found that calling the contact a “tackle” did not change its character, because “the essence of the activity is the collision”, and that the event was a combat sport under the Act, in which the primary objective of the competitors is to strike or hit each other. Run Nation was ordered to pay the Authority’s legal costs, and the event was postponed to later in 2026.

The decision means Run Nation events in NSW must be conducted as combat sports under the Act, including through a registered promoter lodging a permit application no later than 28 days before the contest.

Following the decision, Run Nation CEO Tremaine Fernandez said the hearing “was not about RNC being banned” and that “RNC is here to stay”, adding that the organisation looked forward to working with the Authority.

Contact and combat sports under scrutiny

The decision comes amid a broader discussion about regulation and liability in both combat and contact sports, and in emerging sporting formats more generally.

On 28 August 2026, the NSW Government referred emerging combat activities to a parliamentary inquiry by the Standing Committee on Social Issues. The activities referenced include collision sports, bareknuckle boxing, power slap, and underground or backyard fight clubs. The inquiry will consider whether the Combat Sports Act 2013 is still fit to regulate these emerging activities, and whether they fall within the Act’s definitions. Minister for Sport Steve Kamper said:

“We need to make sure our laws keep pace with the way collision and combat sports are evolving.”

Calls for further regulation have also grown louder with increasing awareness of brain injuries and neurological conditions such as chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Repeated head knocks, heading, collisions, and tackling may increase the risk of dementia, CTE, and other neurodegenerative diseases.

Some governing bodies have responded with contact training limits, including World Rugby.

Regulation and liability

For operators, promoters, and organisers, non-compliance can carry serious liability, so it is essential to understand their obligations.

Under the Combat Sports Act 2013 and its regulations, promoters’ obligations include:

• appointing an attending medical practitioner and notifying the Authority beforehand;
• ensuring combatants comply with protective clothing and equipment requirements; and
• supplying equipment such as compliant gloves.

The Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) protects organisations from liability in a range of circumstances.

Under section 5H, there is no duty to warn of an “obvious risk”, subject to some specific exceptions. Under section 5F, an obvious risk is one that, in the circumstances, would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the position of the person who suffered harm. It may be patent or a matter of common knowledge, and can still be an obvious risk even if it has a low probability of occurring.

Under section 5L, there is no liability for harm resulting from an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity. A recreational activity includes any sport, whether or not it is organised, and it is “dangerous” if it involves a significant risk of physical harm.

Under section 5I, there is also no liability in negligence for harm suffered from the materialisation of an inherent risk, being a risk of something occurring that cannot be avoided by the exercise of reasonable care and skill.

When organisers can still be liable

These protections are not absolute. In Tapp v Australian Bushmen’s Campdraft & Rodeo Association Limited [2022] HCA 11, Ms Emily Tapp was competing in the Association’s campdrafting event in 2011. The arena surface had become slippery and deteriorated, and four competitors fell within about 45 minutes before Ms Tapp’s turn. Organisers continued despite a request to stop. When Ms Tapp competed, her horse slipped, causing her to fall and suffer a serious spinal injury.

A majority of the High Court found that the Association breached its duty of care, and that Ms Tapp’s injuries did not result from the materialisation of an obvious risk. A reasonable person in the Association’s position would have foreseen the probability of harm if the competition continued without inspecting the arena. The risk was not obvious to a reasonable person in Ms Tapp’s position, because the deterioration of the arena had substantially elevated it.

The case shows that organisations must take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm, and cannot rely on the “obvious risk” defence where their own conduct has increased the danger. It echoes long-standing concerns about safety standards in equestrian sport.

What this means for emerging sports

The NSW Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant development for Run It Straight and other emerging collision sports. As concerns about head injuries, participant welfare, and regulation grow, organisers must comply with their legal obligations and control foreseeable risks. The ruling also highlights the broader challenge facing lawmakers and sporting bodies in balancing participation in sport with participant safety and organiser accountability.

Koffels advises athletes, clubs, promoters, and sporting organisations on regulatory compliance, liability, and injury claims. Learn more about our sports law services, or contact us confidentially below.