RFU SHORT JUDGMENT FORM RFU REGULATION 19 Match Bedford Blues Bristol Rugby Club level 2 Competition Championship Date of match 23/09/2017 Match venue Bedford PAGE 1 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Player s surname Wilson Date of birth 7/7/83 Forename(s) James RFU ID number 01463087 Club name Bedford Plea Admitted Not admitted Offence 10.4f Playing an opponent without the ball SELECT: Red card Citing Other Hearing date 28/09/2017 Hearing venue QEB Hollis Whiteman 1-2 Laurence Pountney Hill London Chairman Philip Evans QC Secretary Rebecca Morgan Panel member 1 Paula Carter Panel member 2 N/A Decision Proven Not proven Other disposal (please state) Click to enter other disposal. This case was originally due to be heard on Wednesday the 27 th September in Bristol when a panel of three would have heard it. Instead the club requested the hearing take place today at 2pm in London. They have been accommodated but consequently it has only been possible to convene a panel of two. The player raised no objection to the constitution of the panel. This case arose following a citing. The Citing Commissioners report reads as follows; HEARING DETAILS ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CITING/REFEREE S REPORT/DVD FOOTAGE With play moving down field and a breakdown forming in the BB22, BR10 is positioning himself for a BR attack if his side win the ball. BB15 (James Wilson) gets up from the ground having just made a tackle, and runs back into his own 22 as if to rejoin the defensive line. En route, he curves his run and appears to deviate slightly from the quickest route back into the defensive line, and charges BR10 from behind with his left shoulder, knocking BR10 to the ground. BR10 requires quite lengthy treatment and has to be removed from the field. Bristol Rugby have confirmed that the player has sustained the injuries and required the treatment listed above directly as a result of this incident, and will likely not be fit to play for a number of weeks. This is a serious act of foul play, which was some distance from the ball, entirely gratuitous and committed from behind the victim player and out of his line of vision. Through the club, BR10 has confirmed that he did not see BB15 and did not expect contact of this nature. He was therefore extremely vulnerable and unable to protect himself from injury. In my view this incident meets the red card test and I therefore cite BB15 under Law 10.4(f) for playing an opponent without the ball. The Player was charged with playing an opponent without the ball, contrary to law 10.4(f). The particulars of the charge are that in the match between Bedford Blues and Bristol Rugby on 23 September2017, when not in possession of the ball, he played an opponent not carrying the ball. The incident occurred in the second half of the match. The player denied the charge. The panel had footage available from two angles and heard the players account. He told us that he is 34 and has played fifteen season of professional rugby at a high level. He has never received a red card and only one yellow card for a technical offence. The game he said was fast and had involved a lot of running at a time when he was a bit rusty having not played competitively for several weeks. He had been involved in a breakdown and wanted to get up to his feet and get back into position. Bristol were attacking well into the Bedford half. Bristol he described as playing wide wide and breaking up into three pods. When the footage was stopped with the counter at 00:07 the player told the panel that he had intended to run in a straight line, back into the defensive line as full back.
PAGE 2 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CITING/REFEREE S REPORT/DVD FOOTAGE CONTINUED As he was running back he looked to his left and then to his right focusing on the breakdown. He did not see the Bristol 10 who moved into his line of running, crossing in front of him and he denied deliberately deviating in his run to go towards the Bristol player. It was the three strides that the Bristol 10 took which caused the collision. The first he saw was something in his peripheral vision but he did not know who it was. He flinched but did not change his body shape before contact was made, he braced himself and then there was contact. It was the contact that caused the change in the shape of his body, which can be seen on the footage. We also had a statement from Rory Murray Head of Medical at Bristol Rugby. The extent of the Bristol player s injury was less than certain as he was awaiting further assessment on Friday to establish if he would be fit to play this weekend. He reported neck pain and neural symptoms and an altered sensation to his thumb and index finger which he said had affected his ball handling. In another statement from Bristol his injuries had been described as whiplash-type. He has been able to engage in skills training. Counsel for the player submitted there were three possible findings open to the panel. Either, it is as the player described it a total accident and if so the matter should go no further; secondly, the act was a deliberate one in which case it passed the red card test, or it was a reckless act in which case he submitted it did not pass the red card test. The panel considered the footage carefully and the evidence given by the player. We also took into account the Player s past record and character supported by the statement of Mike Rayer. We formed the view that the shaping of the Player s body came before contact was made. He can be seen to shift his weight onto his left leg and move his left arm up and toward the Bristol 10 before they made contact. In our judgment this movement of his body and the overall picture given from the footage demonstrates a deliberate act, albeit one where the intention may well have been formed only momentarily before the contact. Also the player s reaction immediately after contact was not in our opinion consistent with someone who had just completely by accident collided with an unknown player with a reasonable degree of force. He did not show any curiosity, concern or other reaction and simply continued running in the same forward direction. It was we believe an opportunistic act which had the effect of removing the Bristol 10 from his position at a time when Bristol were in an attacking position when the player was out of the defensive line. It was no doubt seized upon once the Bristol 10 began to come towards the Player s path and with the intention of distracting the opposition player to gain an advantage for his team. We do not conclude the player intended to cause any injury. The panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this was a deliberate act of foul play and that it did pass the red card test.
PAGE 3 ASSESSMENT OF SERIOUSNESS REGULATION 19.11.8 PLEASE TICK APPROPRIATE BOX Intentional/deliberate 19.11.8(a) Reckless 19.11.8(b) Gravity of player s actions 19.11.8(c) The player ran into an opposition player and struck him in the back with his arm/shoulder. This caused the opposition player to fall over and caused injury to him that meant he was unable to play on. Nature of actions 19.11.8(d) As set out in the judgment above Existence of provocation 19.11.8(e) There was no provocation Whether player retaliated 19.11.8(f) This was not an act of retaliation Self-defence 19.11.8(g) Not applicable here. Effect on victim 19.11.8(h) The player was treated immediately as a result of the incident. Effect on match 19.11.8(i) None save that the injured player could not continue Vulnerability of victim 19.11.8(j) The Bristol 10 was obviously vulnerable. He was running with his back to the player concentrating on being in a position to receive the ball after the breakdown. He would not have expected the contact and would not in any way have braced himself for it. Level of participation/premeditation 19.11.8(k) We have described this act as opportunistic Conduct completed/attempted 19.11.8(l) The conduct is was complete. Other features of player s conduct 19.11.8(m)
PAGE 4 ASSESSMENT OF SERIOUSNESS REGULATION 19.11.8 CONTINUED Entry point Top end*. weeks Mid-range 4 weeks Low end. 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: The panel considered this to be an intentional act (albeit not one where the player intended any injury) committed to gain an advantage. It caused some injury to the neck area which could easily have been worse. It was carried out on a player who was in our judgment vulnerable at the time. When judged in the scheme of other cases, which would fall into this category we are satisfied that there could well be more serious examples as well as less serious examples and that this offending falls in the mid range of the scale. 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 an immaculate record Need for deterrent 19.11.10(b) No Any other off-field aggravating factors 19.11.10(c) None Number of additional weeks: 0 weeks
PAGE 5 RELEVANT OFF-FIELD MITIGATING FACTORS (REGULATION 19.11.11) Acknowledgement of guilt 19.11.11(a) The player contested the charge Player s disciplinary record/good character 19.11.11(b) Excellent record and positive good character Youth & inexperience of player 19.11.11(c) Not relevant here. Conduct prior to and at hearing 19.11.11(d) Excellent Remorse & timing of remorse 19.11.11(e) The player was sorry that the Bristol 10 had been injured. Other off-field mitigation 19.11.11(f) None Number of weeks deducted: 1 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 28/09/2017 Banned to 16/10/2017 Ban split from Click here to enter a date. Ban split to Click here to enter a date. Free to play 17/10/2017 Total sanction 3 weeks Sending off sufficient Costs 250 Final date for appeal: 30/09/2017 NOTE: UNDER RFU REGULATION 19.5.2, PLAYERS ORDERED OFF ARE PROVISIONALLY SUSPENDED PENDING THE HEARING OF THEIR CASE, SUCH SUSPENSION SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN SANCTIONING Signature (Chairman) Signature (Secretary) Philip Evans Date 28/09/2017 Rebecca Morgan Date entered to GMS 29/09/2017 Additional information:- The Player will miss three fixtures in the 3 week period of suspension meaning that the suspension is meaningful.