RFU SHORT JUDGMENT FORM RFU REGULATION 19

Transcription

1 RFU SHORT JUDGMENT FORM RFU REGULATION 19 Match Camborne Penryn Club level 8 Competition Duchy League Date of match 21/10/2017 Match venue Camborne PAGE 1 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Player s surname Hoon Date of birth Click here to enter date. Forename(s) Simon RFU ID number Click here to enter text. Club name Camborne Plea Admitted Not admitted Offence Match official abuse SELECT: Red card Citing Other Hearing date 29/11/2017 Hearing venue Bristol Chairman Euan Ambrose Secretary David Guyan Panel member 1 John Doubleday Panel member 2 Chris Hoadley Decision Proven Not proven Other disposal (please state) Click to enter other disposal. HEARING DETAILS ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CITING/REFEREE S REPORT/DVD FOOTAGE This was an appeal against the decision of the Cornwall RFU Disciplinary Panel on The background may be summarised as follows. The incident occurred at the end of a match between Camborne and Penryn on The referee blew the final whistle a few minutes early. Simon Hoon, the Camborne player/manager, took exception to this and remonstrated with the referee as the referee was trying to walk off the field. That remonstration resulted in disciplinary proceedings against Mr Hoon. A hearing was convened before the Cornwall RFU Disciplinary Panel on The referee attended that hearing, but Mr Hoon did not, having not been notified of it. The Panel proceeded to hear the case in Mr Hoon s absence. Their decision was that the panel felt that the evidence showed that Mr Hoon was guilty under Law 10.4(s) and 10.4(m) of Threatening Actions or Words at Match Officials. The Panel imposed a 24 week suspension. Following that hearing, it became apparent that Mr Hoon had not been notified of it and so a fresh hearing was arranged for The hearing on was before the same Panel that had dealt with the case on Mr Hoon attended, but on this occasion the referee had not been asked to attend. The Panel proceeded to hear evidence from Mr Hoon, who disputed that his words or actions had been threatening. The Panel deliberated and then gave their decision, which was that the panel felt that the evidence showed that Mr Hoon was guilty under Law 10.4(s) and 10.4(m) of Threatening Actions or Words at Match Officials and that this view was unchanged. The sanction was reduced to 12 weeks suspension. Mr Hoon appealed. The Appeal Panel heard the appeal on in Bristol. Mr Hoon attended with Matthew Shaw, the Camborne RFC Club Secretary, who had drafted the grounds of appeal. The referee was available, if needed, to give evidence by telephone. The Appeal Panel considered firstly whether any of the grounds of appeal set out in Regulation were made out. The Appeal Panel concluded that (c) was made out, namely the original Panel had failed to act fairly in a procedural sense at the hearing on The Appeal Panel reached this conclusion for the following reasons. At the hearing on , the original Panel had envisaged (correctly in the view of the Appeal Panel) that the referee should give evidence and Mr Hoon should have the opportunity to ask questions of the referee. That did not happen because Mr Hoon had not been notified of the hearing and was not present. At the fresh hearing on , the referee should have been present, in person or by telephone, so that Mr Hoon could ask questions of him. That did not happen. The failure to afford Mr Hoon an opportunity to ask questions of/challenge the 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 referee amounted to procedural unfairness such that (c) was made out. Without more, this was sufficient for the appeal to succeed. It was unclear to the Appeal Panel whether the original Panel had, in coming to its decision on , relied simply on the referee s written report or whether it had additionally relied upon oral evidence given by the referee to the Panel in Mr Hoon s absence on The Panel s written decision on , stating that its view was unchanged, tends to support the latter. If that were the case, it would constitute an additional source of procedural unfairness. However it was not necessary to come to a final decision on this aspect of the appeal in view of the conclusion already reached in relation to proceeding in the absence of the referee on The Appeal Panel considered how to proceed. It concluded that, exceptionally, it would hear the case afresh rather than remit it for a re-hearing (Regulation applied). The factors taken into account in coming to this decision were the fact that this was now the third hearing of the matter and all concerned (including the referee, who was consulted) were understandably anxious to see it concluded; Mr Hoon and Mr Shaw were present in person at the Appeal hearing, having travelled a very significant distance to be present, and were ready to proceed; the referee was available by telephone and was ready to proceed; Mr Hoon had already been suspended for 5 weeks by the time of the appeal hearing and if the case were remitted, the period of suspension pending a hearing would inevitably be extended. The Appeal Panel put the charge to Mr Hoon, namely a charge contrary to Rule 5.12, with the particulars specifying that he had used threatening actions or words at match officials. Mr Hoon disputed the charge, saying that he would accept verbal abuse of match officials, but he disputed that his words or actions had been threatening. The Appeal Panel heard evidence from the referee, who gave evidence by telephone in accordance with his report. The relevant part of his report was as follows: As I tried to walk away to the tunnel where the players were waiting, my path was constantly being blocked by the coach who was constantly saying that he was going to report me. Mr Shaw asked questions of the referee on behalf of Mr Hoon. In answer to those questions, the referee confirmed that Mr Hoon did not make any direct threat, nor did he make any physical contact. The referee explained that as he was trying to walk off the field, Mr Hoon kept stepping in front of him, about a metre away from him, and kept saying that he would report him for blowing up 10 minutes early. These actions impeded but did not prevent the referee s exit from the field. The Appeal Panel considered the evidence of the referee and considered the charge. The Appeal Panel were impressed by the referee as a witness and accepted his evidence, but concluded that it did not support a charge of threatening words or actions and that the particulars ought to be amended to specify verbal abuse of match officials. The Appeal Panel amended the charge in the exercise of its powers under Regulation The amended charge was put to Mr Hoon and he admitted it. Mr Hoon admitted that he had lost his cool when the final whistle was blown early. His team were behind but in his opinion they had had a chance to turn the game around, which was lost when the final whistle was blown. He admitted that he had repeatedly told the referee that he was an idiot (a detail that was volunteered by Mr Hoon, it not forming part of the referee s report) and that he was going to report him. The Appeal Panel then considered sanction. Mr Hoon is 29 years old. He has been playing for Camborne since he was 14. He has an exemplary disciplinary record. He stepped in this season to run the 2 nd team, which was otherwise in danger of folding for want of someone to run it. He was extremely remorseful and apologised to the referee in the hearing.

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) Match official abuse Match official abuse Existence of provocation (e) Whether player retaliated (f) Self-defence (g) Effect on victim (h) The referee was upset by the incident Effect on match (i) Vulnerability of victim (j) None The victim was the referee Level of participation/premeditation (k) Conduct completed/attempted (l) No one else was involved Completed 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 6 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: On the facts, this merited a low end entry point of 6 weeks 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) None Number of additional weeks: 0 weeks

5 PAGE 5 RELEVANT OFF-FIELD MITIGATING FACTORS (REGULATION ) Acknowledgement of guilt (a) Player s disciplinary record/good character (b) Yes Exemplary Youth & inexperience of player (c) Conduct prior to and at hearing (d) He is aged 29, he is the player/coach of the Camborne 2 nd team Exemplary Remorse & timing of remorse (e) Other off-field mitigation (f) Significant remorse shown at the hearing Number of weeks deducted: 3 weeks NOTE: SUBJECT TO REGULATION , A DISCIPLINARY PANEL CANNOT APPLY A GREATER REDUCTION THAN 50% OF THE RELEVANT ENTRY POINT SUSPENSION SANCTION Banned from 21/10/2017 Banned to 26/11/2017 Ban split from Click here to enter a date. Ban split to Click here to enter a date. Free to play 27/11/2017 Total sanction 3 weeks Sending off sufficient Costs 0 Final date for appeal: 18/12/2017 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) Euan Ambrose Date 01/12/2017 Rebecca Morgan Date entered to GMS 04/12/2017 Additional information:- The sanction was a 3 week ban. The period of the ban was to , which is longer than 3 weeks. The reason for this is that during this period there was one Saturday when Camborne s match was cancelled and another Saturday when there was no game. Therefore, the period of the ban was extended so as to constitute a meaningful sanction of 3 weeks.