Transcript
RFU SHORT JUDGMENT FORM RFU REGULATION 19 Match
London Welsh RFC
Club level Date of match
2 17/09/2016
PAGE 1 Player’s surname Forename(s) Club name Offence
Yorkshire Carnegie RFC Competition Match venue
Greene King IPA Championship London Scottish
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE West Ben London Welsh 10.4(m) - Match official abuse
Date of birth 19.01.1992 RFU ID number 00376287 Plea Admitted ☒ Not admitted ☐ SELECT: Red card ☐ Citing ☒ Other ☐
HEARING DETAILS Hearing date Chairman Panel member 1 Decision
21/09/2016 Hearing venue London Philip Evans QC Secretary Rebecca Morgan Tom Rees Panel member 2 Paula Carter Proven☒ Not proven☐ Other disposal (please state)☐ Click to enter other disposal.
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CITING/REFEREE’S REPORT/DVD FOOTAGE The report of the Citing Commissioner read as follows:“Following a Yorkshire Carnegie lineout in the London Welsh 22, a maul is formed. As the maul moves between the London Welsh 22 and 5 metre line, London Welsh number 5 (Ben West) can be seen outside of the maul in the defensive line. Yorkshire Carnegie scrum half takes the ball out and runs sideways with it before passing. As the Yorkshire Carnegie scrum half picks the ball up and starts to move, Ben West can be seen tracking the movement of the scrum half, as he (West) moves over the 5 metre from touch pitch marking. As the Yorkshire Carnegie scrum half passes the ball, Ben West is approximately half a metre from the referee who is looking in the opposite direction. As the ball is passed, Ben West raises both hands and pushes the referee in the back, causing his head (the referee’s) to recoil as he falls to the ground face first. Ben West does not stop and check if the referee is ok or help him up and instead immediately follows play. The referee blows his whistle for a London Welsh scrum following a Yorkshire Carnegie knock on. As the pack comes together the referee can clearly be heard to say: “If you do that again, you might be in a lot of trouble.” Before continuing: “If you do that again, you might be in a lot of trouble, Alright. Occasionally I might get in the way but it does not justify pushing me over, is that understood?” Any response from Ben West is inaudible. As such, I issue a full citing to London Welsh number 5, Ben West, under World Rugby Law 10.4(m) acts contrary to good sportsmanship.”
The England rose is an official registered trade mark of the Rugby Football Union and is the subject of extensive trade mark registrations worldwide.
PAGE 2
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CITING/REFEREE’S REPORT/DVD FOOTAGE CONTINUED
The Player provided a statement to the Panel, the relevant extract of which read as follows:“First of all I would like to apologise for the incident and in particular for any harm done to the referee. It was a complete accident as I believe the video clip shows. I was defending the no 9 channel as their scrum half tracked across the pitch. Our coaching and defensive structure is such that my primary responsibility is to focus on and defend that channel in case of a cut back on the inside. Hence, once their scrum half passes the ball I turn to link up with the outside defence and immediately upon so doing I sight the referee only an instant before we collide and too late unfortunately for me to take any evasive action. I instinctively raised my arms in acknowledgement and, as soon as the referee blows for a knock on a moment or so later, I go up to him and apologise in person stating that I simply didn’t see him until it was too late (given his positioning in relation to mine and my role). Once again I acknowledge the fact of what happened and, though entirely accidental, fully accept that certain consequences follow. I would respectfully request the panel to take the above into account as mitigating circumstances and apologise again to the panel, the referee and the club and my colleagues for what has happened.’ London Welsh Statement: “The club is equally sorry for and apologises unreservedly to the panel and the referee for what happened - even though it was, to our mind, entirely accidental. The club would respectfully request the Panel, in considering the case, to take into account the mitigants [sic] of the relative positioning of the player and the referee. The player’s instinct was to follow his role and instructions to cover the inside and, as such, and given the proximity to our goal line, was totally and properly focussed on that challenge. As such, it was unfortunately only too late that, as his focus changed with the line of attack to the outside, the referee came into view - too late sadly for the collision to be avoided. The player’s instinctive reaction we believe fully supports this view. Given the above, and recognising also that there have to be absolute consequences to ensure that the safety of the referee is at all times fully protected (which of course everyone, as we, should fully endorse), we would simply invite the panel to please consider the innocence of the player concerned and that it was indeed a genuine accident. Indeed Ben West has throughout his playing career only ever received a yellow card for a technical infringement and never one for misconduct let alone a red. The club would also like to submit that unlike the case of Mitch Eadie (which is perhaps the nearest precedent and where a 6 week ban was imposed), the situation here was even more clearly innocent and accidental in nature and, while recognising the paramount importance of ensuring certain sanctions follow for any incident involving a referee, would request that a 4 week ban might be more proportionate. Finally, London Welsh RFC would again like to express its regret for what happened and apologise to the panel and the referee accordingly. Thank you for your time and consideration of our case.” The Panel were provided with a number of video clips by London Welsh which showed the Referee’s positioning in either the defence or attacking line at other points during the game. The Panel viewed these clips but made no finding as to the effect of the positioning of the Referee in this incident.
ASSESSMENT OF SERIOUSNESS REGULATION 19.11.8
PAGE 3 PLEASE TICK APPROPRIATE BOX
Intentional/deliberate 19.11.8(a) ☐
Reckless 19.11.8(b) ☒
DCON
Gravity of player’s actions 19.11.8(c)
Nature of actions 19.11.8(d)
Reckless contact with the Referee which occurred in a dynamic game situation and where the Referee was able to continue with the game.
The Referee was pushed from behind causing him to fall on to the floor. He did not suffer any injury as a result.
Existence of provocation 19.11.8(e)
Whether player retaliated 19.11.8(f)
None applicable
Not applicable in this case
Self-defence 19.11.8(g)
Effect on victim 19.11.8(h)
Not applicable
The Referee was knocked off his feet on to the floor but suffered no injury in the incident.
Effect on match 19.11.8(i)
Vulnerability of victim 19.11.8(j)
There was no effect upon the match save for a brief delay whilst the Referee spoke with the Player. There was no spectator or Player reaction to the incident.
The Referee is vulnerable for a number of reasons, not least because he would not be expecting contact from a Player and also because the contact comes from behind. The Referee is not part of a team on the field of play and should be protected.
Level of participation/premeditation 19.11.8(k)
Conduct completed/attempted 19.11.8(l)
This was an instantaneous response to the Player finding himself about to make contact with the Referee when it was not expected. The Panel did not find this to be premeditated.
The conduct was completed in that contact was made by the Referee.
Other features of player’s conduct 19.11.8(m) None applicable.
ASSESSMENT OF SERIOUSNESS REGULATION 19.11.8 CONTINUED
PAGE 4 Entry point
Top end* Click weeks
Mid-range Click weeks
Low end 24 weeks
*If top end, the Panel should identify an entry point between the top end and the maximum sanction (19.11.9) - see Appendix 2 In making the above assessment, the Panel should consider the RFU guidance (Note 2) set out in Appendix 5 to Regulation 19. Significant weight should be given to RFU regulation 19.11.8(a), 19.11.8(h) and 19.11.8(i). Reasons for entry point: th
The Panel had in mind the decision of the Panel in the Mitch Eadie case (Heard by Sir James Dingemans on the 14 October 2015) which characterised this type of offending (reckless contact occurring in a dynamic game situation where the Referee was able to continue) as low end. There were many similarities with the finding of the Panel in this case and so the Panel felt properly able to characterise it as low end. Had the Panel found this to be a deliberate or intentional act then it would not have fallen in to the low end category of offending.
ADDITIONAL RELEVANT OFF-FIELD AGGRAVATING FACTORS (REGULATION 19.11.10) Player’s status as an offender of the Laws of the game 19.11.10(a) The Player has a clean disciplinary record.
Need for deterrent 19.11.10(b) None identified by the RFU or World Rugby.
Any other off-field aggravating factors 19.11.10(c) None
Number of additional weeks:
0
weeks
RELEVANT OFF-FIELD MITIGATING FACTORS (REGULATION 19.11.11)
PAGE 5
Acknowledgement of guilt 19.11.11(a)
Player’s disciplinary record/good character 19.11.11(b)
The Player pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to the charge and to the Referee on the field of Play.
The Player has not been sent off or cited previously and only has one yellow card for a technical offence which was disregarded.
Youth & inexperience of player 19.11.11(c)
Conduct prior to and at hearing 19.11.11(d)
The Player is 24 years old and is playing at a high level of the game.
The Player and club are to be commended with the way in which they approached this case. They assisted the Panel in terms of the information provided and their approach to the hearing in more general terms.
Remorse & timing of remorse 19.11.11(e)
Other off-field mitigation 19.11.11(f)
The Player was immediately apologetic on-field and further reiterated that apology in writing to the Panel.
The Panel had consideration to RFU Regulation 19.11.13 which gives Panels the ability to give more than 50% credit in mitigation in circumstances where the usual 50% off the entry point would still result in a sanction that was ‘wholly disproportionate’ to the level and type of on-field offending. The Panel had in mind the judgments of Mitch Eadie as well as Kieran Brookes (March 2014) and Joe Graham of Yorkshire Carnegie (Nov 2011) and determined that a reduction of 75% (18 weeks) was appropriate in the circumstances.
Number of weeks deducted:
18
weeks
NOTE: SUBJECT TO REGULATION 19.11.13, A DISCIPLINARY PANEL CANNOT APPLY A GREATER REDUCTION THAN 50% OF THE RELEVANT ENTRY POINT SUSPENSION
SANCTION Banned from Ban split from Free to play
Total sanction
Costs
£ 80
21/09/2016 Click here to enter a date. 02/11/2016
6 weeks
Banned to Ban split to
Sending off sufficient ☐
Final date for appeal:
01/11/2016 Click here to enter a date. NOTE: UNDER RFU REGULATION 19.5.2, PLAYERS ORDERED OFF ARE PROVISSIONALLY SUSPENDED PENDING THE HEARING OF THEIR CASE, SUCH SUSPENSION SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN SANCTIONING
29/09/2016
Signature (Chairman)
Philip Evans QC
Date
27/09/2016
Signature (Secretary)
Rebecca Morgan
Date entered to GMS
22/09/2016
