RFU SHORT JUDGMENT FORM Match Richmond Vs London Scottish Club s County Competition Greene King Championship Date of match 1/9/18 Match venue Richmond PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Player s surname Mitchell Date of birth 13.03.92 Forename(s) Cameron Plea Not Admitted Club name Richmond RFU ID No. 00699222 Type of offence Citing Law 9 Offence 9.12 ((Punch or Strike) Sanction 4 weeks suspension HEARING DETAILS Hearing date 05.09.18 Hearing venue Holiday Inn, Bloomsbury, London Chairman/SJO Philip Evans QC Panel member 1 Meg Gardiner Panel member 2 Mike Tutty Panel Secretary Rebecca Morgan Appearance Player Yes Appearance Club Yes Player s Representative(s): Steve Hill, Richmond Director of Rugby Mark Hallisey, Disciplinary Officer Other attendees: Stuart Tennant, RFU Legal Counsel (Discipline) Kylie Hutchison, Observing List of documents/materials provided to player in advance of hearing: As well as the video footage the documents available to the player and panel in advance of this hearing were a 26 page hearing bundle which included; 1) Charge Sheet 2) Table of sanction entry point 3) Citing Commissioners report 4) Various email correspondence between the Citing Commissioner and London Scottish regarding the injury to the opposition player 5) Four stills taken from footage of the game 6) WR guidance re: Law Application guideline contact to the head and related briefing notes 7) RFU regulation 19 Appendix 5 8) Various emails to/from Richmond regarding the players position pre-hearing. Disciplinary Decision Page 1 of 8
SUMMARY OF ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CITING/REFEREE S REPORT/FOOTAGE The Citing Commissioner s report read as follows; 27:04 London Scottish fires a long pass out which bounces just before London Scottish 15 picks the ball up. There is a dog leg in the Richmond defence and he steps inside, firstly evading the tackle of Richmond 8. 27:07 Richmond 12 tackles London Scottish 15 firstly up around chest height and then drops around the waist and further down to the legs. As Richmond 12 slips down in the tackle Richmond 13 comes back to help in the tackle. As London Scottish 15 is trying to pull away from the tackle of Richmond 12, Richmond 13 swings his right arm and connects with force in a striking motion with the chin/ face of London Scottish 15. Richmond 13 left arm is firmly wrapped around the body of London Scottish 15 and the tackle is completed. London Scottish 15 jumps back to his feet immediately and continues to play the whole game. Contrary to Law 9:12 striking an opponent with a stiff arm I have decided to cite Richmond 13 - Cam Mitchell. The report also included the following detail regarding the injury to the opposition player. No medical attention on the pitch at the time. London Scottish 15 received bad swelling to his nose and has been advised of no contact work this week until swelling has reduced. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF OTHER EVIDENCE (e.g. medical reports) Disciplinary Decision Page 2 of 8
SUMMARY OF PLAYER S EVIDENCE The Player went through the video footage with the panel and In summary he told us that he was going back to defend and was deliberately trying to wrap and secure the tackle area with the aim of preventing the opposition player off loading the ball. He wrapped both of his arms around, the left first which he wrapped and then the right which he said made contact legally and lower than the chin of the opposition player. His first point of contact was, he said, shoulder on shoulder. He denied that at any time he made contact with the head and denied that he had committed any act of foul play. Richmond drew the panel s attention to the fact that after the incident the opposition player did not appear to go to his nose area or to his face as if he was feeling any discomfort as a result of the incident. They also expressed the view that the referee and assistant referee were in a good position to see the incident and did nothing as a result. This they argued supports the player s contention that nothing had occurred. Richmond also suggested that because the Citing Commissioner had originally been told in error that the opposition player had suffered a broken nose that he may have been influenced in his decision to cite. The fact that London Scottish ultimately confirmed the injury was bad swelling was they said significant. The Player went on to offer to show the panel a photograph stored on his phone of the relevant opposition player, immediately after the game, in which the Player said there was no evidence of injury. The panel confirmed we were happy to see the photograph but we were never in fact shown it. It was in any event difficult to see the relevance of such a photograph given the Player s suggestion was not that the opposition player had not been injured but that the bad swelling to his nose was not caused during this incident. It seems to the panel entirely possible that the signs of injury developed later than the time the photograph was taken. Finally the Player said that if the panel concluded that he did strike the player to the head it was an accident and still did not warrant a red card. Disciplinary Decision Page 3 of 8
FINDINGS OF FACT The panel watched the footage many times, before, during and after the hearing. We also studied the still shots and considered the other areas that the Player advanced as set out above. Having studied all of the different footage available the Panel was best assisted by the view from the footage shown in real time. We do not think the footage supports the account given by the player. We do not see on the footage shoulder to shoulder contact in the way described by the Player. We are satisfied the footage shows the Player going back and starting his tackle too high and continuing it too high. The left arm of the player does make legal contact to the back of the opposition player but the right arm of the player appears to us to make its first contact with the head and can properly be described as having been swung into the head with some force. The Panel sees no reason to doubt the medical evidence as it ultimately ended up in the email chain from London Scottish. They were asked the following question; Your 15 caught a short arm across his chin on Saturday and just wanted to see if had any after effects in terms of medical assistance after the game. He got straight up and appeared fine and played the whole game. But would just like to check? Naturally we recognise some weaknesses in this evidence but although it was certainly not the decisive evidence in our decision It did not in any way undermine the citing in the way Richmond suggest it should. We also did not think that the absence of any reaction by the opposition player or from the Crowd should cause us to reject what we feel can clearly be seen from the footage. There is no evidence before us as to whether the referee saw the incident or not and it has we believe no relevance to the decision we have to take. We do not think the Player intended to strike the head area but we do think he misjudged the tackle and the result is as we describe above. Because this was reckless contact with the head where the Player started high and continued high, where he swung towards the head and made contact with some force to the head we are satisfied this was an act of foul play which warranted a red card and we uphold the citing. DECISION Breach admitted Proven Not proven Other disposal (please state below) Disciplinary Decision Page 4 of 8
SANCTIONING PROCESS ASSESSMENT OF SERIOUSNESS Assessment of Intent Reg 19.11.8 PLEASE TICK APPROPRIATE BOX 19.11.8(a) Intentional/deliberate 19.11.8(b) Reckless X Reasons for finding as to intent: For the reason set out above we conclude the player was trying to tackle but misjudged that tackle and his actions fall squarely into the WR definition of reckless. Gravity of player s actions Reg 19.11.8(c) This was contact with the head with some force. Nature of actions Reg 19.11.8(d) Existence of provocation Reg 19.11.8(e) None Whether player retaliated Reg 19.11.8(f) Not applicable Self-defence Reg 19.11.8(g) Not applicable Effect on victim Reg 19.11.8(h) We accept that the incident caused bad swelling but no significant or lasting effect. Disciplinary Decision Page 5 of 8
Effect on match Reg 19.11.8(i) None Vulnerability of victim Reg 19.11.8(j) Players running with the ball are always vulnerable to their opponents tackling high. Level of participation/premeditation Reg 19.11.8(k) Not premeditated Conduct completed/attempted Reg 19.11.8(l) Complete Other features of player s conduct Reg 19.11.8(m) None ASSESSMENT OF SERIOUSNESS CONTINUED Entry point Top end* Weeks Mid-range 6 Weeks Low-end Weeks *If Top End, the JO or Panel should identify, if appropriate, an entry point between the Top End and the maximum sanction and provide the reasons for selecting this entry point, below. In making this assessment, the JO/Committee should consider RFU Regulation 19 Reasons for selecting Entry Point above Top End World Rugby requires a mid-range entry point in the circumstances found here. Disciplinary Decision Page 6 of 8
ADDITIONAL RELEVANT OFF-FIELD AGGRAVATING FACTORS Reg 19.11.10 Player s status as an offender of the Laws of the Game Reg 19.11.10(a) The player is 26 and has player a high standard of rugby since he was 18 and before that at school. He has never before received a red card or been cited and has only ever he told us received one yellow card for a technical offence. Need for deterrent to combat a pattern of offending Reg 19.11.10(b) N/A Any other off-field aggravating factor that the Disciplinary Panel considers relevant and appropriate Reg 19.11.10 (c) None Number of additional weeks: 0 RELEVANT OFF-FIELD MITIGATING FACTORS Acknowledgement of guilt and timing Reg 19.11.11(a) The Player contested the charge. Player s disciplinary record/good character Reg 19.11.11(b) As set out above his record was extremely good and provides him very significant mitigation. Youth and inexperience of player Reg 19.11.11(c) Not relevant Conduct prior to and at hearing Reg 19.11.11(d) The players conduct was exemplary. He contested the case with courtesy and answered questions constructively and politely. Remorse and timing of remorse Reg 19.11.11(e) N/A Other off-field mitigation Reg 19.11.11(f) Number of weeks deducted: 2 Disciplinary Decision Page 7 of 8
Summary of reason for number of weeks deducted: Having heard the manner in which the player gave evidence and considered the excellent mitigation he put forward the panel felt able to allow a reduction of 2 weeks from the starting point. Games for meaningful sanction: The Player will miss 4 league fixtures within this period as follows:- 09.09.2018 v Yorkshire Carnegie 15.09.2018 v Doncaster Knights 23.09.2018 v Cornish Pirates 29.09.2018 v Hartpury SANCTION NOTE: PLAYERS ORDERED OFF ARE PROVISIONALLY SUSPENDED PENDING THE HEARING OF THEIR CASE, SUCH SUSPENSION SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN SANCTIONING Total sanction Sanction commences Sanction concludes Free to play Final date to lodge appeal Costs (please refer to Reg 19, Appendix 3 for full cost details) 4 weeks 4 September 2018 1 October 2018 2 October 2018 8 September 2018 250 Sending off sufficient Signature (JO or Chairman) Philip Evans QC Date 06.09.18 NOTE: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF APPEAL AGAINST THIS DECISION AS SET OUT IN REGULATION 19.12 OF THE DISCIPLINARY REGULATIONS. YOUR ATTENTION IS SPECIFICALLY DRAWN TO THE TIME LIMIT AND DIRECTIONS/REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO AN APPEAL SET OUT IN REGULATION 19.12.9 Disciplinary Decision Page 8 of 8