RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION DISCIPLINARY HEARING JUDGMENT. In the matter of Southwell RFC, Wath upon Dearne and Hubie Glynn

Transcription

1 RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION DISCIPLINARY HEARING Venue Hilton Hotel, Victoria Quays, Furnival Road, Sheffield Date 5 th March 2018 JUDGMENT In the matter of Southwell RFC, Wath upon Dearne and Hubie Glynn Match: Southwell U15 RFC and Wath-upon-Dearne U15 RFC. Match Date: 5 th October 2017 Match Venue: Southwell. Panel: Secretary: Ian Unsworth QC, Austin Newman, Siobhan Walsh. Rebecca Morgan Attending: Southwell RFC Alex Brown Hubie Glynn Wath-upon-Dearne Katie Fothergill Counsel (appearing for Wath upon Dearne and also the RFU) Bob West Club Chairman Peter Gunning Safeguarding Officer Nigel Jones U15 coach Clive Jones U15 team manager 1

2 Observing Hamish Gibb Schools and Youth Discipline Secretary (Yorkshire) Angie Lee Nick Mudd South Yorkshire Safeguarding Manager NLD Discipline Chairman. Decision 1. The Clubs and Coach each admitted separate offences of Conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Union and / or Game. 2. The Panel determined that each Club undertake Core Values training prior to the start of the season. It is a requirement that the respective Club Safeguarding Officers inform the relevant authorities at Twickenham upon satisfactory completion of the same 3. The Panel invited the Clubs to encourage every parent / guardian/ carer to attend the training. 4. There be a warning as to conduct of each Club. Any repetition of such behaviour may lead any future Panel to revisit this ruling and invoke further sanctions. 5. There be a mandatory Safeguarding audit of each Club. 6. The Panel determined that Mr Hubie Glynn be suspended for a period of 20 weeks. That period had, in fact, expired at the time of the hearing and Hubie Glynn having not engaged in coaching during that period would not be required to serve any further time suspended. 7. However, Mr Glynn was required to complete an RFU Play it Safe course before being allowed to resume his coaching activities. The Club s Safeguarding Officer must inform the relevant officer at Twickenham of the same upon satisfactory completion of the course. 8. There be no order as to costs. Preliminary Matters 9. There was no objection to the composition of the Panel. 10. This was a sensitive case. A number of interested observers were in the room. All introduced themselves and explained the reason for their presence. They were able to observe proceedings but not participate. That said, they were able to greatly assist the 2

3 Panel when, later, we asked for specific assistance with local arrangements relating to safeguarding. Charge and Plea 11. The initial papers were dated the 19 th January The Clubs 12. Each Club was charged with Conduct Prejudicial to the interests of Union or the Game, contrary to Rule The charges mirrored each other and stated: In the match between Southwell U15 RFC and Wath-upon-Dearne U15 RFC on , a brawl broke out on the pitch between players. [The Club] failed to control the conduct of their players which was prejudicial to the interests of the game. The incident occurred towards the end of the second half of the match. 13. Southwell initially and vigorously denied the charge. In an dated the 25 th January they described the allegations as racially motivated and malicious. 14. Ultimately on 22 nd February 2018, Southwell accepted the charge. 15. Wath-upon-Dearne accepted the charge on 26 th January Hubie Glynn 16. Mr Glynn, a parent, coach and on this occasion, linesman was also charged with Conduct Prejudicial to the interests of the Union or Game. As initially drafted there was a specific allegation of an assault against a 14 year old player. 17. Mr Glynn vigorously denied that allegation. 18. The RFU engaged counsel Ms Fothergill, who, sensibly, in our view, analysed the evidence, which was competing in parts (crucially so) and, in consultation, redrafted the charge. This read: In the match between Southwell U15 RFC and Wath-upon-Dearne U15 RFC on , Hubie Glynn of Southwell U15 acted with unnecessary force towards one player from the Wath-upon-Dearne U15 RFC team (in breach of the Physical Intervention section of the RFU Safeguarding Policy (pages 22 and 23)). The incident occurred towards the end of the second half of the match. 3

4 19. Prior to the hearing it was indicated that Mr Glynn would accept this revised charge. At the Hearing itself, the Panel was concerned to ensure that Mr Glynn fully understood the charge and, based upon that understanding, did, in fact, accept it. 20. Some time was taken over this issue and we had a short adjournment of the hearing in order that Mr Glynn could consider this matter and take advice as appropriate. 21. Ultimately, before us, Mr Glynn did accept the charge. Facts 22. As the charges make clear, these offences arose from a match between Under 15 Junior players. 23. That statement is in itself a sad reflection of the game. 24. The facts are a more depressing indication of how, on this occasion, the joy of playing the game of Rugby was overshadowed by an ugly incident, which brought shame on each Club. 25. It is fair to say that there was a number of competing recollections of what happened. Experience shows that this often happens in incidents involving a number of people viewed from a number of different angles and, perhaps, a number of different viewpoints. This was something that Counsel had to grapple with in coming to an objective description of what actually happened. 26. We were greatly assisted by Ms Fothergill who skilfully drew out the essential strands of evidence, which enabled the Panel to properly fulfil our obligations in respect of this important manner. It was as a result of her work and those assisting her at the RFU that a very large number of child and other witnesses did not have to attend the hearing. 27. There was a very large number of witnesses. The Panel were provided with a large body of statements from Players, Team Officials, Match Officials, Parent Spectators and, of course, Mr Glynn. We read and considered them all. In order to protect the identity of children (and their parents) we have not set them out here but they are those which featured in the main bundle and which both parties have. 28. Although the material before us was voluminous, the broad nature of what happened can be summarised in a single sentence: A brawl broke between the Players which was sufficiently serious for Mr Glynn and others to enter the playing area. 29. Some of the more essential features of the facts were these: i. The Clubs do not play each in other s region. 4

5 ii. iii. iv. The match was organised at short notice between the two under 15 sides. They played in similar kits so Southwell turned theirs inside out. The effect of this short notice was that it wasn t realised that a full size pitch was needed. The pitch was not properly marked and was therefore marked out with cones. Another consequence of being organised at short notice was that the match was refereed by a Southwell coach/ referee rather than an independent referee. He was also the Junior Chairman. It is clear that this incident has had a marked effect upon him and, sadly, he has, declared that he will not referee again. v. The game was fairly one -sided. By half time Southwell led by At the time the game was brought to a halt, the score was vi. vii. viii. ix. Some of the Wath players reported name calling going on and articulated a general feeling of frustration at what they perceived to be the referee favouring the home team. On the Wath touchline it was felt that the referee was being sarcastic towards their players. The referee sensed that the Wath players, coaches and supporters were antagonistic towards him throughout the game. In his match report he reported that he had to speak to the Wath coach on two occasions about his behaviour. The referee said that the lead coach continued to protest and did so in front of the players. The referee felt that the coach s behaviour was eventually followed by similar behaviour by supporters and players. x. Wath felt that the Southwell players were taking advantage of the situation and were getting away with various illegal acts upon the pitch. This varied from high tackles to pushing too early. xi. xii. xiii. xiv. Inevitably with hindsight, this ugly atmosphere led to a complete breakdown in order. In the 17 th minute of the second half a fight broke out between two players. This led to a brawl with a large number of players from both sides joining in. Some ran a distance to do so. Punches and blows were thrown. It was an ugly incident which did no side any credit. This was then followed by coaches, including Mr Glynn, running onto the pitch, to try and break things up. The referee felt that both sides did a good job of trying to diffuse the situation. 5

6 xv. xvi. xvii. It was during this period that Mr Glynn, a parent, an ad hoc coach for Southwell, and assistant referee at this game, accepted that he acted with unnecessary force towards one of the Wath players (see below). The game was brought to an end. There were varying reports of events thereafter. However, the broad essence of it is that the various sides were able to talk to each other in what were very strained circumstances. The Clubs Position 30. It was obvious to the Panel that Wath took these allegations very seriously. This is perhaps best reflected in the response of the Chairman, Mr West which came just 7 days after being served with the case papers: With reference to the charge Failure to control players Wath upon Dearne RUFC will not contest the charge. The incident is very regrettable, it is the first occurrence in over 20 years since we started age grade rugby that the club has had any charge or incident. The team involved are now in their 3rd season together, they have had no previous incidents or issues and have been well received by opposing teams. However there was an incident in this case where punches were thrown and multiple players were involved, this is very regrettable and cannot been condoned. The players and coaches were aware of the RFU code of conduct, which is displayed around the Wath clubhouse. Since this occurrence we have run specific classroom training sessions for the U15s and will complete for all other age grade teams shortly. These have focused on the importance of the code of conduct to the ethos of the sport and to the need for compliance to it. The event caused the club much distress and is viewed very seriously. The players are aware of the importance of the charge to the club in general. I as Chairman have also informed all age grade coaches and managers that they have a Primary Duty of Care to protect their players. If they feel that their charges are not being effectively protected in any game they must politely ask for the game to be stopped and end the game before issues get out of hand and players take it upon themselves to escalate. Safety of players is paramount. 31. Thus whilst there may have been some disagreement with some of the detail of what was alleged it is clear that Wath-upon Dearne accepted the charges but had insight into what had gone wrong and what they had to do to put this right. 32. Southwell were not as forthcoming with their acceptance that they did anything wrong. They felt that the charges were malicious and racially motivated. 33. The Panel expressed disappointment at this. It is vital that Clubs have an open mindset when facing matters such as this. Allegations need to be looked at objectively and responded to without recourse to extreme language. It doesn t serve anyone well to 6

7 adopt such an aggressive approach, particularly when dealing with matters involving children. 34. Ultimately, having assessed the evidence, Southwell did indeed accept the charge. It was abundantly obvious that they like Wath had failed to control their players. To suggest that this was a malicious prosecution was wide of the mark. 35. Our disappointment was not aimed at Mr Glynn. Far from it. We had a great deal of sympathy for his predicament. He had faced serious allegations which would have had a serious effect upon his life if made out and, at a relatively late stage, was faced with a revision of those charges which, in effect, mirrored his early assessment of what he did. He acted with a quiet dignity throughout. Mr Glynn s account 36. Mr Glynn reported that the Wath players, following the lead of their disruptive coaches had started to question the referee s decision-making process. 37. He said this: As linesman/parent/coach I deemed it necessary to enter the field of play to break up the full on fight along with all coaches from both teams and had to pull apart a Southwell and Wath player who had carried on the fight a little further than necessary. This resulted in the Wath player falling to the ground but he got up straightaway. The Wath player reacted badly to me pulling them apart and made some comment which I can't remember and after which he walked off. 38. It is that incident which led to the charge against Mr. Glynn. It has to be said that a more serious allegation was laid against him, it being said that he had picked up a player by the collar, shook him and swore at him. That, however, was not pursued and we did not proceed on that basis. 39. We should add that having read the statements that we did, we observed that there were many conflicts in them and we can well understand why Counsel took the view that she did as to the proper drafting of the charge. 40. After the game it seems that the Club s were able to talk to each other 41. Mr Glynn accepted that his behaviour was such that he acted with unnecessary force towards one player from the Wath-upon-Dearne U15 RFC team (in breach of the Physical Intervention section of the RFU Safeguarding Policy (pages 22 and 23)). 42. That policy reads as follows (highlighted in bold) : Discipline on the field of play is the responsibility of the players. Coaches, team managers and parents must always promote good discipline among the players, both on and off the field. Penalising play which contravenes the laws of the game is the responsibility of the referee. Coaches, managers and spectators should not intervene or enter the field of play. 7

8 Physical intervention should only take place when it is absolutely necessary to prevent a child being hurt. In these situations it is imperative to: consider your own safety give verbal instructions first use the minimum reasonable force to resolve the incident not strike blows, act with unnecessary force or retaliate avoid contact with intimate parts of the body, the head and neck stay in control of your actions 43. Mr Glynn and others in his position had all entered the field of play. The referee felt that their actions helped to diffuse the situation. It certainly brought matters to an end. 44. On a fair and objective analysis, they had physically intervened in order to prevent children being hurt. 45. In accepting that he was at fault, Mr Glynn acknowledged that in the act of separating 2 players he had brought one of them to the ground. He accepted that in doing so he had acted with unnecessary force. Safeguarding 46. The introduction to the RFU Safeguarding Children Policy is a useful starting point: Rugby union is a fantastic sport for youngsters, building their confidence and character and introducing them to values that will help them in rugby and throughout life. Every one of the young people involved in our sport is important to us. We take our responsibility for their welfare and wellbeing very seriously and want the rugby environment to be a safe and happy one. The core values of teamwork, respect, enjoyment, discipline and sportsmanship are important both for children in rugby and all the adults they meet, who we hopewill serve as role models providing a positive experience. Safeguarding children is of paramount importance and involves promoting children s welfare in every way. It means protecting them from abuse and neglect but also ensuring their appropriate development and maximising their opportunities. Safeguarding is about creating child-centred rugby and all that we do to prevent problems arising. We rely on our many volunteers who give up their time to organise mini and youth rugby and aim to provide the highest standards of care for children in a safe and enjoyable environment. If you are a player, coach, parent, volunteer or teacher, this safeguarding policy exists to help you to protect our children from harm and to provide a positive experience for them. The RFU has robust safeguarding procedures and acts swiftly in cases of possible abuse, working with multiple-agencies to deliver integrated support to children and families. This policy, its guidance and procedures are aimed at empowering children and 8

9 young people. The policy provides information about abuse, identifying problems, and guidance and procedures for use by everyone involved in delivering rugby union nationwide. The RFU provides support for clubs, helping them to make safer recruitment decisions and providing systems for dealing with allegations or concerns. We have excellent training programmes for everyone working with young players, as well as effective systems for working with other relevant agencies. With your help we will remain at the forefront of protecting young people in sport. 47. It is clear that had many of the adults present read that introduction and adhered to the RFU s core policies then it is highly unlikely that this case would not have come before us. They did not act as role models. 48. Actions have consequences. To undermine a referee is to eat away at the games core values. To be aggressive eats away at the core values. To do this as adults leads children (who look to the adults for a lead) to believe that such behaviour is acceptable. Other players become frustrated. Their bad language extends to physical behaviour. They fight. Adults are then forced to enter the pitch and everyone looks for someone to blame. Some blame the referee. Some blame the opposition supporters. Some blame the opposing players. Almost no-one looked at themselves. 49. It was clear to us that this dreadful and ugly incident would not have occurred had the adults and players been fully aware of the games core values and approach to safeguarding. These matters are not clever marketing slogans to be put up on a notice board next to the Club bar sandwiched between the winning raffle numbers and the first team selection. They are hugely important. 50. Both clubs demonstrated a lamentable failure to control their players on the pitch. That control begins with education and behaviour off the pitch. Decision 51. We undertook an assessment of the conduct of both Clubs and also Mr Glynn. We were grateful to both sides for their submissions and also the helpful references from others. 52. Having taken time to consider this matter and having due regard to the vital role that safeguarding has with our Game, we came to the conclusion that we wanted to impose a sanction that would help both Clubs and Mr Glynn to learn from this and move forward in a positive, more informed way. 53. We were mindful of the fact that Mr Glynn acted as many other adults did in entering the field of play and that would not have been necessary had the brawl not occurred. That brawl would likely not have occurred had the adults shown proper respect for the referee and shown leadership. 54. We had to sanction Mr Glynn for the use of unnecessary force which he accepted. 9

10 55. For all those reasons we made the following decision: 56. The Panel determined that each Club undertake Core Values training prior to the start of the season. It is a requirement that the respective Club Safeguarding Officers inform the relevant authorities at Twickenham upon satisfactory completion of the same 57. The Panel invited the Clubs to encourage every parent / guardian/ carer to attend the training. 58. There be a warning as to conduct of each Club. Any repetition of such behaviour may lead any future Panel to revisit this ruling and invoke further sanctions. 59. There be a mandatory safeguarding audit of each Club. 60. The Panel determined that Mr Hubie Glynn be suspended for a period of 20 weeks. That period had, in fact, expired at the time of the hearing and Hubie Glynn having not engaged in coaching during that period would not be required to serve any further time suspended. 61. However, Mr Glynn was required to complete an RFU Play it Safe course before being allowed to resume his coaching activities. The Club s Safeguarding Officer must inform the relevant officer at Twickenham that the same upon satisfactory completion of the same. 62. There be no order as to costs. Right of Appeal 63. There is a right of appeal against this decision. Any such appeal must be lodged with the RFU Head of Discipline in accordance with normal procedure. Ian Unsworth QC 19 th June