RFU SHORT JUDGMENT FORM RFU REGULATION 19 Match Richmond FC Doncaster Knights Club level 2 Competition Greene King Championship Date of match 10/11/2017 Match venue Richmond PAGE 1 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Player s surname Jones Date of birth 12.05.1994 Forename(s) Luc RFU ID number 01550013 Club name Richmond Plea Admitted Not admitted Offence 10.4(j) - Tip tackle SELECT: Red card Citing Other Hearing date 14/11/2017 Hearing venue Bloomsbury Holiday Inn Chairman Dr Julian Morris Secretary Rebecca Morgan Panel member 1 Paula Carter Panel member 2 Tom Rees Decision Proven Not proven Other disposal (please state) Not red card offence HEARING DETAILS The citing report read: ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CITING/REFEREE S REPORT/DVD FOOTAGE A scrum takes place just inside Richmond s half in the centre of the pitch. The ball is passed back from the Doncaster no9 (Michael Heaney) to the Doncaster no14 (Andy Bulumakau) who crosses the half way line with the ball. Doncaster no14 is then met and picked up off the ground by two Richmond players, scrum half no9 Luc Jones and the no7 Jack Allcock, and is carried back over the half way line into his own half. The Richmond no7 can be seen to have hold of the Doncaster no14 s body, whilst the no9 plays the predominant role in the lifting by grabbing hold of the player s legs. The Richmond no7 then lets go of the body of Doncaster no14 but the Richmond no9 retains his hold on Doncaster no14 s legs. Whilst the Doncaster no14 s legs are still off the ground, Richmond no9 then drops the player to the ground, which results in the Doncaster no14 initially putting his left arm down to protect himself but then landing on the right hand side of his neck and head area. The match referee saw the incident and awarded a penalty to Doncaster. My primary position is that this was a tip tackle, contrary to law 10.4(j), as the Doncaster no14 was lifted from the ground by the Richmond no9 (who was the main instigator of the lift) and was dropped into the ground whilst his feet were still off the ground. The player s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground. This act of foul play meets the red card test and I cite Richmond no9 under law 10.4(j). My alternative position is that this was a dangerous tackle under law 10.4(e) which meets the red card test and accordingly should be cited. I have reviewed the conduct of Richmond no7 as part of this incident but, in my view, his conduct does not amount to foul play and therefore he has not been cited under 10.4(j) or law 10.4(e). The Player confirmed that he denied both charges. He took the panel through the video evidence. He confirmed that D14 moved onto his inside at pace, that movement meant that his tackle moved from the on-comings player s left to right side as he looked at the on-coming player (D14). Despite the attacking player s movement he managed to grab hold of his left leg. Given the momentum that D14 had, it spun the Player around so that he was in from of D14 from Richmond s perspective but still had hold of D14 s left leg. Richmond 7 then joins the tackle. The Player stated that he knew he could not tackle D14 to the floor but Richmond are trained to tackle in pairs and he held on for the second tackler knowing they would come. The England rose is an official registered trade mark of the Rugby Football Union and is the subject of extensive trade mark registrations worldwide.
PAGE 2 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CITING/REFEREE S REPORT/DVD FOOTAGE CONTINUED Richmond 7 then joins the tackle and hits D14 and starts to drive him back at the same time, with the change in momentum, the Player is pulling D14 down the pitch to gain yardage. At this time he still has hold of D14 s left leg which is therefore off the ground. At this time D7 also joins the moving maul colliding with R7. The effect of that collision is to de-stabilise R7 with the result that he loses contact with D14 who, as a result, is now off his feet. At this stage, the Player explained he consciously considered that he was now the only player holding onto D14 who had his legs in the air. As a result, he holds onto the D14s left leg and puts him down onto the ground in as controlled a manner as he is able. D14 lands on ground on his upper back. The referee gives a penalty. The Player was questioned in respect of the brief altercation between players of both sides. He explained and evidenced on the footage that that was in relation to another incident that had occurred, just after the tackle, between 2 other players and was nothing to do with this tackle. D14 is seen to get up and join the other pushing and shoving. Specifically in respect of each charge, and on behalf of the Player, it was stated: 10.4(j): that this was not a tip tackle. He had not lifted D14, that had come about as a result of the momentum of the other tacklers. Neither had he dropped D14 to the floor, he had tried to lower him safely and under control. 10.4 (e): that this did not meet any of the specific charges under that heading which left the panel with dangerous tackle. Holding onto the left leg did unbalance D14, however it was the associated interactions of R7 and D7 that had caused the instability. There had been no malice. At most this was a yellow card offence but even that was marginal. D14 had returned to his feet and played the remainder of the game. The panel were in receipt of a medical report supplied by Doncaster and in respect of D14: Andy Bulumakau has been assessed by the Club s medical staffs having reported left sided neck pain, with a slight reduction in movement when looking to the right. Additionally, muscle spasm on the left. There is no neurological involvement and nothing to suggest a long term injury. The player is likely to be restricted from full contact training during the rest of the week. It is not anticipated that he will be restricted by the Medical staff from being eligible for selection for GKIPA Championship Round 9 matches next weekend. The panel considered each charge separately and taking into account Appendix 4 points 14 and 15 found together with the fact that as only one player had been cited (the Player) the panel had to consider whether the actions of the Player constituted either a tip tackle or a dangerous tackle, as follows: 10.4.(j): the panel concluded that the tackle effected by the Player did not constitute foul play. Neither did the tackle have the 4 elements required for it to be categorised as a tip tackle; there was no lift from the Player and he assisted, as much as he could do, in lowering D14 to the ground. As such the charge was not met. 10.4(e): the panel concluded that this was not a reckless or dangerous tackle that met the red card test. The outcome was as a result of the interactions of the other players involved, namely R7 and D7. Given the necessity to consider, within Appendix 4, whether a yellow card was the more appropriate sanction, the panel then reconsidered the above 2 charges again. In relation to the tip tackle, the panel, for the reasons above did not consider this constituted a tip-tackle. In relation to the dangerous tackle, the panel considered that the Player s action did constitute foul play but did not merit the issuing of a yellow card in the alternative. Indeed, the panel agreed with the referee that the incident merited a penalty. In conclusion therefore, the panel determined that the citing brought against the Player in respect of charges, the 10.4(j) and in the alternative 10.4(e), was not met and is therefore dismissed and the Player is free to play again with immediate effect. THE REMAINDER OF THIS FORM IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
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) Nature of actions 19.11.8(d) Existence of provocation 19.11.8(e) Whether player retaliated 19.11.8(f) Self-defence 19.11.8(g) Effect on victim 19.11.8(h) Effect on match 19.11.8(i) Vulnerability of victim 19.11.8(j) Level of participation/premeditation 19.11.8(k) Conduct completed/attempted 19.11.8(l) Other features of player s conduct 19.11.8(m)
PAGE 4 ASSESSMENT OF SERIOUSNESS REGULATION 19.11.8 CONTINUED Entry point Top end* Click weeks Mid-range Click 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: 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) Need for deterrent 19.11.10(b) Any other off-field aggravating factors 19.11.10(c) Number of additional weeks: weeks
PAGE 5 RELEVANT OFF-FIELD MITIGATING FACTORS (REGULATION 19.11.11) Acknowledgement of guilt 19.11.11(a) Player s disciplinary record/good character 19.11.11(b) Youth & inexperience of player 19.11.11(c) Conduct prior to and at hearing 19.11.11(d) Remorse & timing of remorse 19.11.11(e) Other off-field mitigation 19.11.11(f) Number of weeks deducted: Click 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 Click here to enter a date. Banned to Click here to enter a date. Ban split from Click here to enter a date. Ban split to Click here to enter a date. Free to play Click here to enter a date. Total sanction Click weeks Sending off sufficient Costs 0 Final date for appeal: 25/11/2017 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) Dr Julian Morris Date 24/11/2017 Rebecca Morgan Date entered to GMS Not applicable Additional information:- The Player is free to play with immediate effect.