RBS 6 NATIONS 2013 DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE Held at Softel Hotel, Heathrow, England 19 March 2013 In respect of: Bran O Drscoll ( the Player ) and A ctng complant ( the Ctng Complant ) brought by Mr Aurwel Morgan the ndependent ctng commssoner n respect of an alleged act of foul play on the part of the Player contrary to Law 10.4(b) of the Laws of the Game n the match between Italy and Ireland played on 16 March 2013 at Stado Olympco, Rome. Members of the Dscplnary Commttee ( the Commttee ): Mr Robert H P Wllams (Charman) (Wales) Mr Mke Hamln (England) Mr John Doubleday (England) Decson of the Commttee:. That although the Player had accepted that the Ctng Complant was a true and accurate account of the ncdent that resulted n the ctng and had accepted that he had commtted an act of llegal and/or foul play as alleged n the Ctng Complant he dened that the sad act merted a red card. The Commttee, however, was satsfed that the sad act merted a red card and that the Player should have been ordered off for the offence.. The Player s suspended from takng part n the game of rugby up to and ncludng 8 Aprl 2013. Ths represents a three week suspenson, havng commenced on 18 March 2013.. The Commttee made no order as to costs Introducton The Commttee was convened pursuant to the Dscplnary Rules and Ant-Dopng Programme applyng to the 2013 6 Natons Champonshp to consder the Ctng Complant whch concerned the conduct of the Player durng the 6 Natons match between Italy and Ireland played on Saturday 16 March 2013 at Stado Olympco, Rome. The Ctng Complant alleged that the Player had stamped on the Italan no. 7, Favaro, n contraventon of Law 10.4.(b) of The Laws of the Game. Present at the hearng n addton to the Commttee: The Player Mr Declan Kdney, Ireland team coach Mr Mchael Kearney, Ireland team manager 1
Mr Donal Sprng, solctor and legal representatve of the Player ( Mr Sprng ) Mr Jon Davs, Dscplnary Offcer 6 Natons Rugby Lmted Mr Max Duthe, solctor and legal representatve of the Dscplnary Offcer ( Mr Duthe ) Ms Belnda Armstrong of 6 Natons Rugby Lmted Also present were: Ms Lz Rley of Messrs Brd & Brd solctors London who was observng the proceedngs wth the consent of the partes The Charman sad the hearng would be conducted under the provsons of the 6 Natons Dscplnary Rules applyng to the 2013 6 Natons Tournament ( the Rules or Rule n the sngular). The Player and all present agreed to proceed on that bass. The Charman ascertaned that there was no objecton to the composton of the Commttee. He had already establshed that the Player accepted that he was the player referred to n the Ctng Complant. He sad that when the Commttee consders the evdence, they wll need to be satsfed on the balance of probabltes that the act of foul play had been commtted and had merted a red card. The Charman establshed what evdence and papers were to be consdered and that the partes had receved the evdence pror to the hearng and there were no ssues as to the tmng of the delvery of any part of the evdence. The partes confrmed that ths was the case, save that Mr Sprng sad that, at a later stage n the proceedngs, he would be askng permsson of the Commttee to ntroduce vdeo clps of other ncdents. The evdence to be referred to comprsed: Reports The Ctng Commssoner s report of Mr Aurwel Morgan The referee s report from Mr Wayne Barnes The assstant referee s report from Mr Roman Pote The report from Smone Favaro the Italan no. 7 who was the player sad to have been stamped on The medcal report of Dr Smone Procell, the Italan team doctor The Player s response to the pre-hearng drectons Correspondence Other The hearng confrmaton letter dated 18 March 2013 The panel and vew confrmaton letter dated 19 March 2013 The request on behalf of the Player for an extenson of tme for complyng wth the pre-hearng drectons dated 19 March 2013 Varous e-mals forwardng reports/vdeo lnks 18/19 March 2013 Dscplnary and Ant-Dopng Rules for the 2013 6 Natons Champonshp A copy of the IRB Regulaton 18 A copy of the IRB Law 10 The Charman ascertaned that there was no objecton to the composton of the panel. He also noted the Player s responses to the standng drectons and they read as follows: 2
c) Mr O Drscoll accepted that the Ctng Complant s a true and accurate account of the ncdent d) Mr O Drscoll accepted that he commtted an act of foul play as set out n the Ctng Complant e) Mr O Drscoll does not accept that the act warranted a red card. The Charman therefore ndcated that the Commttee would prefer to deal wth the ssue of the red card separate from the ssue of sancton as f they determned that the act dd not mert a red card, they would be enttled to state that they dd not need to consder the matter any further. It was agreed to proceed on that bass. The Charman ascertaned that there were no other prelmnary ssues and sad they would proceed to consder the evdence. The Charman therefore put the Ctng Commssoner s report to the Player as follows: Law 10.4(b) A player must not stamp or trample on an opponent Green 13 (O Drscoll) regans hs feet after beng knocked over durng a tackle made by blue 7 (Favaro) on Green 22 (Madgan), he then jons the ensung ruck, rases hs rght leg and stamps n a downward moton on the chest area of blue 7 who s lyng on hs back on the floor. The stamp s not proxmty to the ball. Blue 7 receves treatment but s able to contnue. Green 13 s yellow carded on the advce of a/r (Roman Pote) The Charman asked the Player whether:. he accepted the Ctng Complant as a true and accurate account of the ncdent whch resulted n the ctng. he accepted he had commtted an act or acts of foul play as set out n the Ctng Complant. he accepted that those act/acts warranted a red card. The Player sad that he stood by the responses to the standng drectons (see above) The Charman sad that the Commttee would consder the evdence to decde ntally whether or not the ncdent merted a red card. The evdence It was agreed the reports and wrtten evdence could be taken as read. They are summarsed as follows: 1) The assstant referee s report from Roman Pote stated that after a tackle made by 7 blue, 13 green joned the breakdown area and stamped the 7 blue who was n the green sde. The act has come far away from the ball and on the 7 blue body who was on the ground. He called the referee Wayne Barnes to gve hs report and recommend a penalty reverse for Italy and a yellow card for 13 green. 2) Mr Wayne Barnes, the referee, confrmed that he dd not see the ncdent. 3) The report of Smone Favaro sad that, durng the match, he had tackled a player fallng to the ground and because of that, a ruck was formed. In the dynamcs of the acton, he found hmself on the sde of the defence. He tred to free hmself from the ruck and at that tme felt the foot of an opponent httng hm on the rght sde of the chest. He contnued to play wthout consequences havng some scratches on the skn. 4) The medcal report refers to Smone Favaro havng medcal attenton mmedately after the ht and there was pan n the rght costal arch and mld dyspnea. After an ntal feld assessment, Smone Favaro was rased and went on to play for several mnutes before beng replaced. * NB1 In the locker 3
room after the game, he showed a skn abrason n the correspondng zone and dyspnea only nhalaton and exhalaton. *NB1 The Commttee were advsed the ncdent occurred n about the 29 th mnute and Smone Favaro contnued playng untl about the 59 th mnute. 5) The vdeo evdence There was a broadcastng clp and a clp whch had been seen by the Ctng Commssoner. Both clps were shown to all present on more than one occason wthout any comments or explanatons beng made. The Commttee s descrpton of what was n the vdeo clps s as follows: The Italan no.7 Favaro tackles the Irsh no.22. They both go to ground. Favaro rolls over the Irsh 22 and s lyng on the wrong sde of the ruck whch has formed. The Player has been knocked off hs balance havng attempted to jon the ruck over the tackled player. He s seen lyng on the sde of the ruck and then on one knee. Hs mouth can be seen wde open as f he s shoutng somethng. He s seen gettng up to hs feet. Favaro s now on hs back and hs arms are outstretched behnd hm. Havng got to hs feet, the Player rases hs rght leg and hs foot comes down on the front of Favaro The boot lands on the Favaro s upper stomach/lower chest area. The Player s off-balanced and hs left hand s outstretched and comes nto contact wth the top of the face of the Vctm Player. Favaros s head s pushed downwards. The Player steps over Favaro and walks away. After they had vewed the clps on several occasons, the Player was nvted to gve hs explanaton and account as to what had occurred. The Player s account was noted as follows: Ian Madgan who has the ball s tackled by Italan no.7 I attempted to jon the ruck but am knocked off balance. I am shoutng to hm to roll away I got up and put my foot on hm to try and encourage hm to roll away He s blockng the ball Tacklers should roll away - referees have been hot on ths players rollng away. Push down on hm to try to releve the ball I am tryng to get hm to roll away Mr Sprng ponted out that the ncdent was very close to the touchlne. It s near to where the assstant referee was postoned and the assstant referee s vew was unmpeded. The assstant referee had 4
recommended a yellow card. He went on to state that the Player s weght was on hs left foot and there was no transfer of weght to the rght foot whch s the foot whch came down onto Favaro. He emphassed that the rght foot dd not come down on any pvotal part of the body such as the ankle. None of Favaro s Italan teammates reacted as f there had been a red card ncdent. No-one engaged wth the Player whch they would have done f he had been gulty of a red card offence. There was no damage to Favaro. The Player s purpose was to get Favaro to roll away and the Player had been askng and shoutng at Favaro to roll away and he dd not. The Charman put to the Player that hs vewng of the vdeo clp showed that there was a ferce stamp. The Player s response was that he was tryng to free up the ball and he was off balance. The Player was asked hs state of mnd when he had.. done a quck stamp and had pushed hm down. The Player s response was that I was a lttle annoyed that he (Favaro no 7) was reluctant to roll away. It was also sad, on the Player s behalf, that the ball was not a mllon mles away. The Player s explanaton for seemng to push down on Favaro s head after stamp was that he was off balance. He sad he had been the frst to arrve at the ruck and he put hs hand down to stop hmself from fallng. Mr Sprng asked the Commttee to vew vdeo clps of other ncdents of a smlar nature. He sad that ths would show that match offcals and ctng commssoners had not sought to mpose red cards for smlar ncdents as the matter now before the Commttee. He sad that the law (Law 10.4(b)) was not beng questoned. The ssue was that the ncdent dd not mert a red card. He accepted there was no wrtten test as to what was a red card. It s a matter of skll and judgment. All players are, however, enttled to be treated wth farness. One should look to see what has happened n other smlar ncdents. There should not be one test on the ptch and a dfferent test at a dscplnary hearng. There needed to be consstency. Mr Duthe responded that although the Commttee could receve such evdence as t deemed ft, n hs opnon, lttle or no weght should be attrbuted to vdeo clps of other smlar ncdents. The Commttee s role was to adjudcate as to whether, n ths partcular matter, the act of foul play was worthy of a red card. He ponted out that smlar requests have been made to other dscplnary commttees and they are nvarably rejected. The Commttee consdered Mr Sprng s request n prvate and decded that although they had a dscreton to consder any evdence whch they deemed approprate, they were consderng the facts of ths case. Ther decson would be fact specfc. The hearng reconvened and the Charman announced they would not be lookng at vdeo clps of other ncdents. Mr Sprng made closng submssons: The red card test s a rugby test and applyng that test ths s not a red card. The ncdent was not malcous nor was t dangerous. The ncdent dd not cause any damage At ts heght, t would be no more than a yellow card The ncdent had been seen by the assstant referee who saw t clearly and dd not vew t as a red card The Italan players reacton was not of a red card ncdent havng occurred There was no transfer of body weght onto the Player There was just a bt of weght appled to the stomach It was a mld ncdent 5
From what he had seen n ths current season of other ncdents, ths was not a red card and decsons should have some consstency Mr Duthe drew the Commttee s attenton to Rule 2.5.68 whch s a departure from the IRB Regulaton 17.7.4(a) n that under the IRB procedures, once a ctng complant s upheld, one proceeds to sancton, whereas the Rules for 2013 6 Natons Champonshp provde that one should consder the red card test before movng to sancton. Mr Sprng was nvted to make closng submssons as was the Player. Mr Sprng remnded the Commttee that the assstant referee was n close proxmty and hs decson was a yellow card not worthy of a red card. The Player sad he was lookng for the ball whch he dd not thnk was far from the ruck. The delberatons of the Commttee The Commttee delberated n prvate and revewed all of the evdence.e. the wrtten and verbal statements, the DVD clps and the submssons. It was noted that: 1) The Player accepted the Ctng Complant was an accurate account of the ncdent whch occurred n the 38 th mnute of the game 2) The Player accepted that the ncdent was a breach of Law 10.4.(b). The Commttee revewed the DVD evdence and played the clps several tmes and ther conclusons are: 1) Favaro s lyng prone on the ground 2) He s on hs back wth hs arms outstretched backwards 3) It was accepted that Favaro s n an llegal poston 4) It s accepted that the Player was shoutng at hm and was dong so to tell hm to roll away. 5) The Player s seen to get to hs feet and rase hs rght leg, brngng t down onto the front of Favaro. 6) The boot lands on the upper stomach/chest of Favaro 7) Favaro s chest s compressed by the mpact 8) Favaro s unprotected, not able to guard aganst the mpact 9) It was a short, quck, delberate stamp delvered wth some force whle he was lookng down at Favaro 10) It was not a ruckng acton. 11) The ball could not be seen. In all the crcumstances, the analyss of the Commttee was that the facts dd not support the contenton of the Player that he was puttng hs foot on Favaro to try and get hm to roll away to releve the ball. The Commttee took note that the assstant referee who saw the ncdent recommended a yellow card. It was ther duty, however, to wegh up all the evdence and to come to ther own conclusons. Under the Rules, they are not oblged to follow the match offcals decsons. The Commttee had the luxury of vewng the 6
ncdent from dfferent angles, frame by frame, n slow and real tme. There s no wrtten formula for a red card test. The cases are fact specfc. The Commttee was therefore unanmous that the ncdent merted a red card and that the hearng would proceed to consder what sancton should be mposed. The hearng reconvened and the Charman announced the decson that the ncdent merted a red card and they would proceed to sancton. Sancton The entry level set out n Schedule 5 of the Rules (Appendx 1 of the IRB Regulaton 17) sets out the tarff for an offence n contraventon of Law 10.4(b) as:- 1. Lower-end 2 weeks 2. Md-range 5 weeks 3. Top-end 9 weeks up to a maxmum of 52 weeks. The Charman asked the Player and hs representatve to address them on the approprate entry pont by reference to the on-feld crtera as per Rule 2.5.87. The Charman added that havng conferred wth hs colleagues, they dd not need to be addressed on off-feld aggravatng factors as they accepted there were none. They would be addressed on the off-feld mtgatng factors by reference to Rule 2.5.90. Mr Sprng made submssons by followng the numbered sub-paragraphs n Rule 2.5.87 as follows:- a. He accepted the fndng of the commttee and t was an ntentonal act. b. Recklessness Mr Sprng referred to the part of the body that had been struck t was not pvotal. NB: The commttee, however, dealt wth ths ssue under c. c. As to the gravty of the Player s actons n relaton to the offendng, Mr Sprng sad that t was a lowend matter. d. The nature of the actons and the manner n whch the offence was commttee to nclude the part of body used t was accepted that n ths case the boot was used but Mr Sprng sad there was no weght on the Player and there was no danger of any njury. e. The exstence of provocaton Favaro was lyng on the wrong sde and the Player had warned hm on several occasons. f. Retalaton ths was not a matter of retalaton. g. Ths was not a case of self-defence. h. As to the effect of the Player s actons on the vctm the extent of the vctm s njury whether he was removed from the match. Mr Sprng ponted out that Favaro played on.. The effect of the Player s actons on the match the adverse effect was for Ireland not Italy as they were wthout a player for 10 mnutes and they went on to lose the game. 7
j. The vulnerablty of the vctm, ncludng the part of the vctm s body nvolved/affected, the poston of the vctm and hs ablty to defend hmself. Mr Sprng sad that n hs opnon ths was a less vulnerable vctm. k. The level of partcpaton dependng n the level of premedtaton t was not premedtated. l. Whether the conduct of the Player was completed or amounted to an attempt Mr Sprng accepted the acton was completed. m. Any other feature of the Player s conduct n relaton to or connected wth the offendng. Mr Sprng referred to the Player shoutng at Favaro warnng hm to roll away. Mr Sprng s submssons are summarsed that, although t was an ntentonal act, t was not grave, there was provocaton and Favaro was a less vulnerable vctm than many others. There was just a bt of weght to the stomach. It was mld. In the crcumstances, the Commttee should therefore regard t as a lower-end matter. As t was accepted there were no aggravatng features, Mr Sprng referred to the mtgatng off-feld factors by reference to Rule 2.5.90 as follows: a) As to the presence and tmng of acknowledgng culpablty, Mr Sprng accepted that the Player had challenged that the ncdent merted a red card b) The Player had an exemplary dscplnary record. He had never been red carded prevously. A yellow card had only been for a techncal offence. Hs playng record spoke for tself. c) Mr Sprng sad that the Player conducted hmself well pror to and at the hearng. d) There was no njury to Favaro and that Favaro had over-reacted after the ncdent. Mr Sprng called for maxmum mtgaton. Mr Duthe drew the Commttee s attenton to Rule 2.5.91 whch provdes that n md and hgh end matters, where there are mtgatng factors whch would justfy reducng the perod of suspenson, they could not apply a greater reducton than 50% from the entry pont. In assessng the level of reducton from the entry pont, the Dscplnary Commttee should start at 0% and work up to a maxmum of 50%. He also drew ther attenton to Rule 2.5.92 whch provdes that for acts of foul play that are categorsed as at the lower end of the scale, they could apply a greater reducton than 50% from the entry pont, provded there are off-feld mtgatng factors (plural) and wthout such a reducton, the sancton would be wholly dsproportonate to the level and type of offendng. Mr Duthe emphassed that for the reducton to be greater than 50% t had to be wholly dsproportonate and ndcated that n hs opnon t was really amed at where the low end entry pont s of tself hgh. Before the Commttee delberated on the sancton, the Player was asked hs vews on the matter and he responded by sayng that he had always prded hmself on beng a hard but far player. He genunely thought t would not have warranted more than a yellow card. He was dsapponted wth the outcome after such a long career and dsapponted for hs team mates as he had to st n the bn whle Ireland were losng. The Commttee s delberatons and conclusons The Commttee delberated n prvate on the ssue of sancton and ther conclusons were as follows: a) It was an ntentonal and delberate stamp. b) As t was ntentonal, the Commttee dd not consder recklessness. 8
c) As to gravty, t was grave t was a short but quck, delberate stamp, delvered wth some force whle lookng down at the Player. d) It was the boot whch came nto contact wth Favaro but ths s nherent n the offence. e) There was some provocaton n that Favaro had not rolled away. Nonetheless, ths was a techncal offence, not a foul beng commtted upon the Player. f) No ssue of retalaton. g) It s accepted that there was no ssue of self defence. h) Although Favaro had n the Commttee s vew over-reacted, he dd need some medcal attenton. The medcal report bears ths out. Nonetheless, he played on mmedately and was not removed from the match untl about the 59 th mnute and there was no evdence or ndcaton that he was removed because of the ncdent. ) The Player s actons had no adverse effect on the match nsofar as Italy was concerned. j) Favaro was n a vulnerable poston. He was lyng prone on hs back wth hs arms stretched backwards behnd hm. He was n no poston to protect hmself or to guard aganst the stamp. The stamp was to the upper stomach/rbcage area. Favaro s chest compresses. The Commttee dd not accept the descrpton of t beng a bt of weght appled to the stomach and t beng a mld ncdent. k) Although t was an ntentonal act, t was not premedtated. The Commttee accepted t was a spontaneous act born out of frustraton. l) The act was completed. m) The Commttee dd not consder there were other features of the Player s conduct n relaton to or connected wth the offendng. There was a lengthy dscusson amongst the members of the Commttee as to the entry pont and they were not unanmous. The majorty, however, were of the vew that ths was not an ncdent of lttle consequence. Favaro was vulnerable and t could have caused a serous njury. The majorty took the vew that a stamp wth a boot - even f the stamp was only on the stomach should not be taken lghtly. An act borne out of frustraton does not lessen the sancton. The referee was n control of the stuaton and had awarded a penalty because Favaro was lyng on the wrong sde. By a majorty of two to one, the decson was that the entry pont was md-range whch s a sancton of 5 weeks. Turnng to the mtgatng factors, the Commttee accepted that the Player had an exemplary character and s one of the leadng rugby players n the world. N.B. The Commttee was aware that the Player had over 130 test caps and that he was the second most capped player n rugby unon hstory. He had had 125 caps for Ireland, 83 of whch were as captan and 6 for the Brtsh and Irsh Lons. He was the hghest try scorer of all tme n Irsh rugby. He had been chosen as player of the tournament n 2006, 2007 and the 2009 6 Natons Champonshp He s wdely regarded as one of the best centres to have ever played the game. 9
The Commttee had been remnded by Mr Duthe that for md and hgh end matters Rule 2.5.91 provded that they could not apply a greater reducton than 50% from the entry pont suspenson and that n assessng the level of reducton from the entry pont, they should start at 0% and work up to a maxmum of 50%. In ths case, the Player had challenged that t was a red card matter. The Commttee took the vew that, n all of the crcumstances before them, that of tself should not prevent them from applyng the maxmum amount of mtgaton. The sancton, therefore, would be reduced by 50% whch s 2.5 weeks but as a sancton has to be for whole weeks, n effect the sancton would be a 3 week suspenson. The suspenson took effect from the date that the Player was notfed of the Ctng Complant.e. Monday, 18 March 2013 and 3 weeks would take t up to 8 Aprl 2013 and he would elgble to play from 9 Aprl 2013. Announcng the decson The hearng was reconvened and the Charman advsed the Player and hs representatve that by a majorty of two to one, the decson was that the ncdent warranted a md range entry pont of 5 weeks. Havng regard, however, to the mtgatng factors, ths would be reduced by 50% but because half weeks are rounded up to whole weeks, the sancton s reduced by 2. The Player would be suspended for 3 weeks from 18 March 2013 to 8 Aprl 2013. The partes were advsed that they had a rght of appeal. The partes were advsed that the wrtten decson would be avalable from Monday 25 March 2013. There were no orders as to costs. DATED 25 March 2013 SIGNED Robert H P Wllams 10