RFU SHORT JUDGMENT FORM RFU REGULATION 19

Transcription

1 RFU SHORT JUDGMENT FORM RFU REGULATION 19 Match Doncaster Knights Rotherham Titans Club level 2 Competition Greene King IPA Championship Date of match 09/09/2017 Match venue Doncaster Knights PAGE 1 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Player s surname Henry Date of birth Forename(s) Jake RFU ID number Club name Rotherham Titans Plea Admitted Not admitted Offence 10.4(m) - Match official abuse SELECT: Red card Citing Other HEARING DETAILS Hearing date 13/09/2017 Hearing venue Leeds Brighouse Holiday Inn Chairman Mike Hamlin Secretary Rebecca Morgan Panel member 1 John Greenwood Panel member 2 Austin Newman Decision Proven Not proven Other disposal (please state) Click to enter other disposal. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CITING/REFEREE S REPORT/DVD FOOTAGE The Citing Commissioners report of the incident read as follows:- During a goal line stand, the match referee (Ian Tempest) was moving around a ruck as if to position himself correctly to determine whether the ball had been grounded over the line, and then whether it had been placed back on the attacking team s side. As he retreated into a position level with the offside line (in this case, the try line) he entered the space immediately in front of a Rotherham Titans defender (RT14) on the line, bumping into him with his back. RT14 then pushed the match referee in the back. The match referee stumbled forward approximately two steps with the force of the push, but did not fall to the ground or demonstrate any other movement consistent with significant force. He did not display any signs of injury, or any obvious signs of awareness that he had been pushed. However, the act of pushing a match official is a serious offence, and posed some danger to the referee in that there were a number of players trying to get into position at speed and gathering around the ruck generally, and it is perhaps fortuitous that Mr Tempest did not lose his balance and topple over the players on the ground, risking significant injury. I consider that RT14 s actions warranted a red card. I therefore cite RT14 (Jake Henry) for physical abuse of a match official, under Law 10.4(s)/(m). The Player denied the charge as put and at the outset the Panel asked Stuart Tennant of the RFU whether he was minded to consider amending or including an alternative charge of Incidental contact with the Match Official. Mr Tennant confirmed that he was not in a position to change the charge at this stage but that after evidence had been heard from the Player and Referee there may be further consideration given. He clarified at the outset that the RFU s position was that this incident did pass the red card test and that it was viewed as a low end offence under Law 10.4.M. The Chairman contacted the Referee, Ian Tempest, who gave evidence via telephone. He confirmed that he had viewed the footage (and had a copy before him) but had not seen a copy of the citing commissioner s report. The Panel Chairman read the report in its entirety and the Referee confirmed that there was nothing in the report he disagreed with. The Referee confirmed that on the video footage, he is seen speaking with AR2 immediately after the try is scored. In that conversation, no mention was made of a push. When asked, he said he was aware that there had been contact with someone but was not aware that it had been a push. He wasn t aware that the Player was immediately behind him nor that he had made contact with the Player first. Having been pushed forward, he confirmed that he had no fear that he was going to fall forwards in to the ruck. The Panel noted that the Referee s arms were raised as he steps/stumbles forwards. The Referee explained that his arms had come up as a natural reaction but it was not a conscious decision to steady himself. He reiterated that he had no concern that he was going to fall. The England rose is an official registered trade mark of the Rugby Football Union and is the subject of extensive trade mark registrations worldwide.

2 PAGE 2 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CITING/REFEREE S REPORT/DVD FOOTAGE CONTINUED The Panel asked the Referee if he accepted that the contact was made as a result of him stepping backwards he said he believed it was clear that the Players hands came up in a positive movement. The Player asked the Referee, through his representative, if he could recall stepping backwards on to the Players foot. The Referee confirmed that he didn t recall that and that his view was that the Players arms came up first before the point at which the Player suggests contact was made with his toe. The Player then gave evidence as to his version of events. He explained that the ruck had formed and he was out of position to cover the blind side of the ruck. He realised he needed to move closer to the guard position and as he moved across the try line, the Referee began to move backwards towards him. He agreed that his arms came up just prior to the Referee stepping backwards on to his foot as a reflex. The Referees heel then clipped the front of the Players boot at which point he was trying to get away to defend because the second Rotherham player had moved in to the guard position. That is why his arms come out in front of him. The Player did not immediately realise at the time of the contact that it was a Referee in front of him. The situation was described as the definition of heat of the battle, in terms of the Players concentration being purely on stopping the opposition from scoring. The Player only realised that it was the Referee once he had stepped away at which point he spoke to AR2 and said I think the Referee got involved. As the conversion was being taken the AR said words to the effect of if that had been the case the Referee would have said or done something. The Player believed that due to their body positions, if he hadn t put his hands up then his chin/head would have made contact with the Referees back which is why his hands came up. The Club on behalf of the Player explained that it was their firm belief that if on the day the Referee thought he had been pushed he would have taken action. Stuart Tennant on behalf of the RFU confirmed that at this stage he would wish to add an alternative charge of incidental contact with a match official but that it remained the RFU s primary position that this was low end physical abuse that met the red card test. As a result the Panel adjourned for 10 minutes to allow the Player and club time to consider the second additional charge. Having reconvened, the Player confirmed that he did not accept the alternative charge. The club reiterated that this was an instinctive reaction by the Player and that there was no reaction by the Referee or Assistant Referee. Findings of the Panel. The Panel deliberated at length over the decision in this case. They found that the Referee was entitled to stand where he did on the field but that it was he who had initiated the contact by moving backwards in to the Player. The Panel accepted that the Referee had stood on the toe of the Player and whilst the Player had used moderate force to push the Referee, this was purely reactive to the situation. On the basis of the Referee backing-up, the fact that the key parts of the incident took place in less than a second and the action of the Player was not unreasonable or disproportionate in the circumstances, the citing was dismissed. The Panel reiterated that cases such as this are very fact specific and each should be considered purely on its own facts.

3 PAGE 3 ASSESSMENT OF SERIOUSNESS REGULATION PLEASE TICK APPROPRIATE BOX Intentional/deliberate (a) Reckless (b) Gravity of player s actions (c) Nature of actions (d) Existence of provocation (e) Whether player retaliated (f) Self-defence (g) Effect on victim (h) Effect on match (i) Vulnerability of victim (j) Level of participation/premeditation (k) Conduct completed/attempted (l) Other features of player s conduct (m)

4 PAGE 4 ASSESSMENT OF SERIOUSNESS REGULATION CONTINUED Entry point Top end* Click weeks Mid-range Click weeks Low end Click weeks *If top end, the Panel should identify an entry point between the top end and the maximum sanction ( ) - 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 (a), (h) and (i). Reasons for entry point: ADDITIONAL RELEVANT OFF-FIELD AGGRAVATING FACTORS (REGULATION ) Player s status as an offender of the Laws of the game (a) Need for deterrent (b) Any other off-field aggravating factors (c) Number of additional weeks: Click weeks

5 PAGE 5 RELEVANT OFF-FIELD MITIGATING FACTORS (REGULATION ) Acknowledgement of guilt (a) Player s disciplinary record/good character (b) Youth & inexperience of player (c) Conduct prior to and at hearing (d) Remorse & timing of remorse (e) Other off-field mitigation (f) Number of weeks deducted: Click weeks NOTE: SUBJECT TO REGULATION , A DISCIPLINARY PANEL CANNOT APPLY A GREATER REDUCTION THAN 50% OF THE RELEVANT ENTRY POINT SUSPENSION SANCTION Banned from Click here to enter a date. Banned to Click here to enter a date. Ban split from Click here to enter a date. Ban split to Click here to enter a date. Free to play Click here to enter a date. Total sanction 0 weeks Sending off sufficient Costs 0 Final date for appeal: 15/09/2017 NOTE: UNDER RFU REGULATION , PLAYERS ORDERED OFF ARE PROVISONALLY SUSPENDED PENDING THE HEARING OF THEIR CASE, SUCH SUSPENSION SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN SANCTIONING Signature (Chairman) Signature (Secretary) Mike Hamlin Date 13/09/2017 Rebecca Morgan Date entered to GMS Not applicable Additional information:-