THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION -and- MR PAUL BIGNOT WRITTEN REASONS OF THE REGULATORY COMMISSION

Transcription

1 IN THE MATTER OF FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN: THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION -and- MR PAUL BIGNOT WRITTEN REASONS OF THE REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. By charge letter dated 6 October 2016, Mr Paul Bignot, Newport County AFC, was charged with misconduct for a breach of FA Rue E3 for violent conduct in respect of an alleged incident in the Football League 2 fixture between Newport County AFC v Cheltenham Town FC. 2. A personal hearing was held at Wembley Stadium on 26 October The Commission consisted of Ifeanyi Odogwu (Chairman), Keith Allen (Independent Football Panel Member), and Tony Agana (Independent Football Panel Member). The Secretary to the Commission was Paddy McCormack, FA Judicial Services Manager. Those attending before the Commission were as follows: Paul Bignot (Participant charged) Mark Knowles (Advocate) Jon Parkin (Newport County AFC player) Reece Grego-Cox (Newport County AFC player) David Williams (FA Regulatory Advocate) Jordan Cranston (Cheltenham Town FC player) James Rowe (Cheltenham Town FC player, via WebEx videoconference) Carl Boyeson (Match Referee, via WebEx videoconference) 1

2 Background 3. On 10 September 2016, Newport County AFC played Cheltenham Town FC in the Football League 2 fixture. After the match the Referee, Carl Boyeson, sent an Extraordinary Incident Report to The FA recording that, after 45+3 minutes of play, No. 17 Jordan Cranston of Cheltenham Town FC and No. 14 Mr Bignot challenged for the ball, the result was the ball ran out of play for a goal kick to Cheltenham. Mr Cranston was on his feet looking over Mr Bignot who was on the floor with his head close to Mr Cranston s shin area. Mr Bignot got to his feet and immediately made an allegation that Mr Bignot had bit him whilst he was on the floor. The referee was unable to take action at that stage as he had not seen the incident. Both players were told to move away after a tackle had been made. After the match, as Mr Boyeson was leaving the ground, Mr Cranston approached the official again and repeated the allegation that Mr Bignot had bitten him and that his club had video evidence. 4. The FA obtained a statement from Mr Cranston dated 20 September In that statement he included: 4. It was close to half time, approximately forty something minutes, when the incident happened. The ball got passed to me in the left back area and I took a bad touch. PB came in to tackle me. As part of this his head ended between my legs. I stood there, I didn t do anything. He nudged his head towards me, as if he wanted me to lash out at him. A split second later I felt a little nibble, a little bite on the top part of my right calf. I reacted angrily and said What the fuck are you doing? and What are you biting me for? PB denied he had bitten me but I was sure it was a bite. PB said, I didn t bite ya, why would I bite ya? I called him a fucking disgrace and a cunt. It was a quick sharp pain and his head was right next to my leg. I knew it was PB because of the number 14 and the name on his shirt 5. In the heat of the moment I went straight to the Referee and said to him He just bit me, did you not see it? The Referee said that he had just seen a coming 2

3 together. I was angry that the Referee hadn t seen it and couldn t take any action. I also told PB to fuck off. 5. The FA obtained a statement from James Rowe of Cheltenham Town FC, dated 22 September In that statement he included: 3. In the first half of the match I saw a NCFC player bite JC on the leg. It wasn t a quick bite, I could see his mouth around his leg. I tried to get hold of the Referee straight away by shouting something like Aye Ref so that he could see what I was seeing. I don t think the Referee could hear me at first and by the time I got the Referee s attention the player had stopped biting JC. The Referee didn t come to speak to me about the incident. 6. The alleged incident was also captured by video footage which was available to the Commission and the parties. 7. On 14 October 2016, Mr Bignot denied the Charge and requested a personal hearing. In his Defence Case Summary, Mr Bignot denied biting or attempting to bite Mr Cranston. He submitted an undated statement which included: 8. The Cheltenham Town players, James Rowe in particular, had been making unjustified complaints to the Referee and were trying to encourage him to give cautions. 9. I can recall the events that can be seen on video I won the ball cleanly and as I had gone to the ground I ended up with Jordan Cranston stood over me. He made no attempt to move away. He appeared to be annoyed by the challenge. 10. I struggled to get up but at no time did I attempt to, or actually, bite Jordan Cranston. I have never bitten anyone. 8. Mr Bignot also submitted statements from Jon Parkin and Reece Grego-Cox in his defence, both players from Cheltenham Town FC. Mr Parkin stated, I had a view of 3

4 the incident from around 20 yards away an [sic] there was no bite. Mr Grego-Cox stated, I had a clear view of Paul Bignot who wriggled to get up an [sic] there was no bite. The Personal Hearing 9. The following is a summary of the principal submissions provided to the Commission. It does not purport to contain reference to all the points made, however the absence of a point, or submission, in these reasons should not imply that the Commission did not take such point, or submission, into consideration when the members determined the matter. For the avoidance of doubt, the Commission has carefully considered all written, video and oral evidence in respect of this case. 10. The FA opened its case, outlining the allegation that in or around the 45 th +3 minute of the match, Mr Bignot bit Mr Cranston in the calf area on his right leg, following a challenge for the ball. 11. The Video footage of the incident was played repeatedly throughout the hearing. 12. Mr Cranston gave evidence first. He confirmed that he had no knowledge of Mr Bignot before the match. He recalled that the game had passed without significant incident until one point where Mr Bignot aggressively shouted smash him when he had the ball. In relation to the incident, Mr Cranston described, I received ball from James Rowe, I took a bad touch, Bignot tackled me. His head ended up between my legs. I m over him and he s in between my legs. He was nudging my leg to get a reaction. I did not react and in a split second I felt a little bite. He went on to describe a sudden pain in the top of his right calf and reacting angrily because he knew he had been bitten. 13. When challenged, Mr Cranston stated that he did not have an opportunity to move away from Mr Bignot once the challenge had been made. He denied that he knew Mr Bignot had already received a yellow card during an earlier penalty incident and that he was seeking to get a reaction from Mr Bignot by standing over him. He accepted 4

5 that he did not have any injury and made no attempts to show the referee the area in which he claims he was bitten. 14. Mr Rowe identified himself on the video footage. He said he had a clear unobstructed view of the incident and that he saw Mr Bignot bite Jordan on the leg. He stated It seemed like a long time at the time. It lasted 5 seconds. He further described, It was definitely a bite. I could see his head go to his [Mr Cranston s] leg, his mouth go round his leg and bite him. He indicated on the video when he says the bite occurred and described his reaction to the Referee saying, I tried to get him to see that. 15. Under questioning from Mr Knowles, he accepted that the video footage showed that there was a Newport County AFC player that was closer to the incident. He accepted that he would have expected there to be a mark on Mr Cranston s leg because it was a proper bite. He denied that he knew Mr Bignot had been cautioned. He maintained that he was 100% sure that he saw a bite. 16. Mr Boyeson confirmed the contents of his report. He said that he couldn t see whether or not there was a bite, but Mr Bignot s head was close to Mr Cranston s shin area. He denied that any player was encouraging him to issue cards against the opposition at any stage of the game. He said that he only recalled Mr Rowe saying Ref, you saw that after the alleged incident but accepts that he may have missed anything else Mr Rowe might have said because he was focusing on Mr Cranston and Mr Bignot. Mr Boyeson recalled how Mr Cranston had approached him after the match in the car park before he departed the ground and repeated the allegation. 17. Mr Boyeson confirmed that in his opinion, there was nothing to prevent Mr Cranston from moving away after the initial tackle. He perceived that Mr Cranston chose to stay there maybe because he was not happy with the robustness of the challenge. When asked about whether he had discussed the incident with his assistant referee, Mr Boyeson said that his assistant had later informed him he did not think it was a bite. 5

6 18. Paul Bignot told the Commission that he did not say smash him at any point. He also narrated the video footage and explained that after making the fair challenge, Mr Cranston kneed him in the back. As a result, he turned back to face Mr Cranston whilst he was on the floor because he had felt a blow. He felt that Mr Cranston was deliberately trying to get a reaction from him. 19. Under questioning from Mr Williams, he disagreed that he was not supporting his original statement about Cheltenham Town FC players seeking to influence the referee. He maintained that he tried to get up naturally but was prevented from doing so by Mr Cranston. He denied being frustrated and denied biting. 20. In evidence, Mr Parkin identified himself on the footage and described being approximately in line with the alleged incident. He said that he saw, Bignot has tackled the guy. Gets kneed in the back. He wriggles out and got up, and the guy has reacted. Under questions, he accepted that he did not have a clear view of the incident and therefore could not be sure there was no bite. 21. Mr Grego-Cox identified himself as the closest player to the incident. He initially confirmed the contents of his statement by saying that I maintained a clear view. I had a complete view of the incident and there was no bite, however, when questioned further he accepted that his view of Mr Bignot s face was obscured by Mr Cranston s standing leg. He therefore conceded that if there was a bite, it is possible that he would not have seen it. Findings 22. The applicable standard of proof is the balance of probability. The balance of probability standard means that the Commission is satisfied an event occurred if the Commission considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. 23. Rule E3(1) at page 112 of The FA Handbook Season , states the following: A participant shall at all times act in the best interest of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or 6

7 a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour. 24. The Commission were wholly satisfied that the alleged bite, if found proved, constituted violent conduct in breach of this rule. The determinative issue therefore was simply whether the Commission was satisfied on the balance of probability that the FA have proved that Mr Bignot bit Mr Cranston. 25. Clearly, there was a conflict between the two versions of events, thus credibility was a key factor. 26. The video footage of the incident is significant evidence. Although it was not independently conclusive as to whether Mr Bignot did bite Mr Cranston, due to the angle of the camera causing partial obstruction of Mr Bignot s face by Mr Cranston s leg, a number of noteworthy features can clearly be deciphered. a. When viewed, it is clear that there was tension between both players following the challenge. It is apparent that Mr Cranston took exception to the robust tackle. He could have stepped backwards and away from Mr Bignot but he remained stationary over him. b. The Commission accepted Mr Bignot s evidence that he felt a blow to his back. Mr Cranston leg does appear to make contact with Mr Bignot, whether deliberate or not, and it is our finding that this contact is likely to have further provoked Mr Bignot in the heat of the moment. c. The head of Mr Bignot then moves to the area in which Mr Cranston alleges he was bitten by him. d. As Mr Bignot s head was positioned around the calf area, Mr Cranston can be seen on the footage to suddenly react to something by shouting and glancing in the direction of where the Assistant Referee is reported to be positioned during oral evidence. He then appears to react angrily towards Mr Bignot by 7

8 grabbing him up from beneath him and pushing him away. Words certainly appear to be exchanged before Mr Cranston runs to the Referee whilst pointing towards Mr Bignot. This reaction is entirely consistent with something exceptional having suddenly occurred such as a bite. e. Mr Rowe can be seen on the footage approximately five yards from the incident looking in the direction of Mr Cranston and Mr Bignot with an unobstructed view. He clearly reacts to an event by suddenly raising his hand and shouting towards the Referee. This occurs simultaneously to Mr Cranston s reaction. 27. The allegation that Mr Bignot had bitten Mr Cranston was made immediately to the referee and was maintained after the match. This was corroborated by Mr Boyeson and it further enhanced the credibility of the allegation itself. 28. While there were some discrepancies in the accounts between Mr Cranston and Mr Rowe about the nature and length of the bite, this did not take away from the compelling evidence they both gave and the fact that both of their versions of events were largely corroborated by the video footage. The Commission did not find it plausible that both players had fabricated this allegation and synchronised their reactions at the time of the incident to get Mr Bignot dismissed and gain a competitive advantage in the match as had been suggested. There was no credible explanation of motive for two professional footballers to concoct such a serious allegation against a fellow professional footballer that they had no prior dealings with or even knowledge of. Similarly, the Commission found it unlikely both witnesses mistook something else for a bite. 29. In contrast Mr Parkin and Mr Grego-Cox were discredited in relation to their evidence that there was no bite, because they both accepted in evidence they were unable to say whether a bite did occur as their view was obstructed at the time it is alleged to have happened. 8

9 30. Mr Bignot s evidence was a simple denial but even he struggled to provide any explanation as to why such an allegation would be made in the manner that it was. 31. The Commission did take into account the lack of any injury or apparent attempt by Mr Cranston to indicate where on his body he had been bitten in the immediate aftermath. However, we did not consider that this significantly undermined the allegation as a whole and it was equally consistent with Mr Cranston s account that the bite was quick and not with force. 32. Having tested the evidence, the Commission unanimously finds on the balance of probabilities that in or around the 45 th +3 minute of the match, Mr Bignot bit Mr Cranston in the calf area on his right leg. The charge is therefore proved. Sanction 33. The Commission heard submissions in mitigation on behalf of Mr Bignot. He has not been guilty of any misconduct offences previously. Credit was given to Mr Bignot in this regard. There was one red card offence for violent conduct in November 2011 whilst playing for Plymouth Argyle; however the Commission apportioned little weight to that being an aggravating factor due to the elapsed time. 34. Clearly there is an inherent seriousness in biting incidents on a football pitch and any sanction must reflect this. Such conduct is wholly unacceptable as it is intentional and used to inflict pain and sometimes injury. Biting incidents remain relatively uncommon within the sport and therefore strong sanctions are required to ensure that it does not become prevalent in the game. 35. Each case is to be considered on its own facts. In this case, the Commission noted that this was Mr Bignot s first misconduct charge. The bite was described as little and quick, and there was no evidence of any injury caused. 36. The Commission order against Paul Bignot, which is unanimously considered fair and proportionate, is as follows: 9

10 i. Paul Bignot is suspended, with immediate effect, from all domestic club football until such time as Newport County AFC have completed six (6) first team competitive matches in approved competitions; ii. He is fined the sum of 600; iii. Warned as to his future conduct; and iv. Shall pay a contribution towards the costs of the Commission for the sum of 1,000 and he forfeits the hearing fee. 37. This decision is subject to appeal in accordance with the relevant regulations within The FA Handbook. Ifeanyi Odogwu (Chairman) Keith Allen Tony Agana 28 October