RFU SHORT JUDGMENT FORM RFU REGULATION 19 AMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Match Chichester RFC Dorking RFC Club level 6 Competition League Date of match 14/01/2017 Match venue Chichester RFC PAGE 1 Player s surname Giddins Date of birth 27th June 1987 Forename(s) Mark RFU ID number 549553 Club name Chichester RFC Plea Admitted Not admitted Offence 10.4(m) - Match official abuse SELECT: Red card Citing Other Hearing date 01/02/2017 Hearing venue Lewes RFC Chairman Sir James Dingemans Secretary Roger Edmonson Panel member 1 Frank Edmonds Panel member 2 Alan Jenkins Decision Proven Not proven Other disposal (please state) Click to enter other disposal. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE HEARING DETAILS ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CITING/REFEREE S REPORT/DVD FOOTAGE The hearing took place at Lewes RFC on Thursday 9 th February 2017. There were no objections to the composition of the panel. Eddy Sears from the Referee society, and Brian Vincent, a Sussex panel member, were observing. Nigel Creasey, a member of Chichester RFC represented both Mark Giddings and Richard Adams. David Kay, the President, was also present. Mark Giddings was not present, but had produced a statement. Richard Adams was present. The cases concerning Mr Giddings and Mr Adams were, with the agreement of the parties, heard together as some of the evidence overlapped. We had statements and reports from: Mr Lanch; Ben Wilde, the referee; Mr Adams; Mr Giddings; Matthew Woodhouse, a Chichester player; Sam Renwick, a Chichester player; Roger Spreckley, a spectator; and Russell Austin, a spectator. We heard evidence from: Mr Lanch; Mr Adams; Mr Woodhouse; Mr Renwick and Mr Austin. The charges against Mr Giddings (physical assault of a match official) and Mr Adams (verbal abuse of match official) arose about 33 minutes into the second half of the match between Dorking RFC and Chichester RFC played on 14 th January 2017 at Chichester s home ground. Mr Giddings was playing number 2 for Chichester and Mr Adams was playing number 10 for Chichester. Nigel Lanch is the assistant team manager for Dorking RFC. He is a former referee, and has officiated at level 5, including in a match played by Canada, and was officiating at level 8 until 2015. He had stopped refereeing as he was now aged 60 years, and had had two hip replacements. He was asked to be touch judge for the match. It is apparent from the report from the referee and the video (which was taken from a raised tripod near the half way line) that Dorking attacked down the left wing and the ball was passed in field and a try was scored by Dorking, cutting Chichester s lead in the match (a lead which, in the final event, they kept to the final whistle). Mr Lanch was the touch judge on the left hand side. It is apparent that the Chichester players thought that the Dorking player had stepped into touch on the left hand side before the try, and one of the players (Mr Woodhouse, who gave evidence) can be seen on the video pointing to the try line. As a matter of completeness (and indeed fairness to Mr Lanch) we should record that the video shows that the Dorking player did not go into touch. It would not have mattered if he had been in touch. Match officials will, on occasions, make mistakes. However their decisions have to be accepted on the pitch without question. Match officials are protected from verbal or physical abuse, and their protection is not dependent on making accurate decisions. As it was Mr Adams was the Chichester player who chased back and nearly caught and tackled the Dorking player before he scored. Mr Lanch ran back towards the posts to get into position for the conversion to be taken. It was at this stage that Mr Lanch said in his evidence that Mr Adams called him a cheating cunt. Mr Adams gave evidence and denied making any comment directed to Mr Lanch. Mr Adams said that he was very fed up with the tackle missed on the Dorking player on the left side of the pitch and called over to Mr Woodhouse, another Chichester player, that he was a stupid cunt. He assumed that Mr Lanch must have mistaken what was said. Mr Woodhouse said he had heard Mr Adams call him a stupid cunt. Mr Renwick, another Chichester player, said he heard Mr Adams use expletive language towards Mr Woodhouse, which he clarified when he gave oral evidence were the words stupid
PAGE 2 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CITING/REFEREE S REPORT/DVD FOOTAGE CONTINUED cunt. The video showed that at the time at which Mr Adams must have made his statement (whatever it was) he had turned back after his tackle on the Dorking try scorer and was close to Mr Lanch who was coming into the try line. He was also facing towards Mr Woodhouse, who was near the left hand touchline in the vicinity of the 22 line. Mr Renwick was further towards the try line but on the left hand side of the pitch. Mr Lanch changed direction and went to the referee, which can be seen on the video. The referee, who had provided a written statement but who was not questioned because he did not hear or see the material incidents reported that Mr Lanch pointed across at the referee to get his attention and complained that one of the Chichester players had called him a cheating cunt. As the referee had not heard the comment he asked the touch judge to continue with his duties while the referee spoke to the Chichester captain. The referee called over the Chichester captain as there was a break for treatment to a Dorking player. Mr Lanch turned to go behind the posts for the conversion. At this stage it is apparent from the video that Mr Giddings comes beside Mr Lanch and appears to put his arm round him as both Mr Lanch and Mr Giddings were going to go behind the posts. There was no good reason for Mr Giddings to have put his arm round Mr Lanch to guide him away from the referee, but it is apparent that any contact at this stage could not have been very forceful, because Mr Lanch frankly admitted that he had not realised, before watching the video, that Mr Giddings had had his arm around him. As Mr Lanch was making his way to a position behind the posts, part guided by Mr Giddings, Mr Adams had dropped to the ground to tie up his bootlaces. It was at this stage that Mr Lanch said again that Mr Adams called him again a cheating cunt. Mr Adams denied that he had said that. Mr Woodhouse and Mr Renwick did not hear any further comments from Mr Adams. It does appear that Mr Lanch has veered at some stage towards Mr Adams, but it is not clear on the video when this occurred, or the extent to which this was because Mr Lanch was being guided by Mr Giddings. Mr Lanch said he had veered towards Mr Adams because he had called him a cheating cunt again, but he said he said he should not have gone towards Mr Adams. Mr Giddings and Mr Lanch continued to their position behind the posts. Mr Renwick said he could see Mr Giddings and Mr Lanch walking towards Mr Adams who was tying his shoelaces. Once under the posts Mr Renwick said he heard Mr Lanch say come on then, what are you going to do about it but he had his back turned so he was unable to see what had happened. We had written statements from two spectators being Roger Spreckley, a former police officer who had travelled to Dorking, and Russell Austin, who also attended to give oral evidence. Mr Spreckley referred to Mr Lanch being followed closely by a Chichester player, before Mr Lanch got to his position and turned to face the player. Mr Spreckley said that the player moved into Mr Lanch s personal space and without any further action I then saw the Chichester player head butt Nigel who instantly fell backwards onto his back and lay in a prone position motionless. Mr Austin said that the touch judge was winding up Chichester players before the conversion and said he seemed to target [Mr Giddings], there were more exchanges of aggressive language. [Mr Lanch] had reached his postion and was still engaged in an argument with [Mr Giddings], at this point he initiated a walked back towards [Mr Giddings] as if to entice him into squaring up face to face they were engaged in a verbal dispute and as they became closer together there was a contact of heads as they squared up to each other this contact of heads was generated by both [Mr Lanch] and [Mr Giddings]. As their heads touched [Mr Lanch] shouted out and he dived backwards to the floor. Mr Austin gave evidence and was shown the video. He accepted that Mr Giddings actions looked a lot worse on the video, and that rather than Mr Lanch targeting Mr Giddings, it appeared that Mr Giddings had come into contact with the referee and put his arm around him to guide him, but he said that what he had written was his recollection at the time. He did not recall any punch but he did recall Mr Giddings with open hands pushing back. Mr Lanch said in his statement that Mr Giddings had advanced towards him and Mr Lanch had backed away. Mr Giddings had walked forward, touched his forehead with his, and then headbutted him. He had followed that up with a left hook which had made him fall to the ground. In evidence Mr Lanch accepted that he had got emotionally involved as a result of being called a cheating cunt by Mr Adams, that he had gone towards Mr Adams when he should not have done, that he could not recall what words were exchanged, but that both he and Mr Giddings had leaned heads into each other. He also confirmed that he had then been pushed over, but could not recall what part of his body had been hit. Mr Giddings, in his written statement, said he denied the allegations against him. He said he was aware of how the video looked, but said he did not push the touch judge, and did not even get the chance to make physical contact with him. He said he could not say what he was doing with his left hand, but could state that he did not push him. The video shows that after Mr Giddings and Mr Lanch have passed Mr Adams they break away and Mr Lanch backs off. There does appear to be some movement from side to side by Mr Lanch as he is away from Mr Giddings, and the two come together. Although it is not entirely clear from the video there does appear to be contact between the heads of Mr Giddings and Mr Lanch but it was not (on the video before us) possible to say whether there was further contact between the heads. However the video shows that Mr Giddings does pull back his arm, and then it goes forward to Mr Lanch.
After the incident Mr Lanch said that he was himself happy to get up and was being helped up by a Chichester player, but the Dorking physiotherapists had insisted he remain lying down to be properly checked and assessed. Mr Lanch confirmed that he had suffered no physical injuries, but he had been badly shaken up and had not been in a good place on Sunday. Our findings of fact: We find that Mr Adams did call Mr Lanch a cheating cunt immediately before Mr Lanch reported this to the referee, and as Mr Lanch passed Mr Adams when he was doing up his shoe laces. Mr Lanch gave clear evidence, and Mr Lanch was frank in his evidence, accepting that he should not have veered towards Mr Adams when he was doing up his shoe laces. It was plain that Mr Lanch believed immediately that he had been called a cheating cunt and not a stupid cunt, and that the comment was directed at him, because that was what he reported to the referee. This must have been said by Mr Adams near to the try line. At the time that this was said Mr Woodhouse was nearly at the 22 metre line and at the edge of the pitch, and we consider that the comment was more likely to have been directed to Mr Lanch. We find that Mr Woodhouse and Mr Renwick were mistaken in believing that any comment was directed to Mr Woodhouse because it was made to Mr Lanch. We also consider that they only heard part of the comment (the use of the c word) and not the cheating part. We did consider that Mr Adams had convinced himself after the event that he was shouting towards Mr Woodhouse but for the reasons given above, do not accept his evidence. In these circumstances we also accept the clear and consistent evidence of Mr Lanch about the second incident. We find that Mr Giddings did, as is shown on the video, guide Mr Lanch to their respective positions behind the post. It was a condescending action, and we consider it more likely than not, and find, that Mr Giddings was part exercised by the fact that he considered that Mr Lanch was reporting another Chichester player to the referee when Mr Giddings thought, honestly but wrongly, that Mr Lanch had allowed a try to stand when there had been a foot in touch. Thereafter we accept that Mr Lanch reacted to his treatment by Mr Giddings and what had been said by Mr Adams, and did become, as Mr Lanch accepted emotionally involved. We are unable to make any findings about what was said between Mr Lanch and Mr Giddings, but we do not accept and reject the suggestion that Mr Lanch was threatening Mr Giddings as alleged by Mr Giddings. This is because Mr Lanch gave clear evidence denying that allegation, there was no clear agreement by others about what had been said, and Mr Giddings did not give oral evidence, and the weight that can be given to a written statement is less than would be given to an oral statement. Although the evidence given by both Mr Austin and Mr Spreckley was no doubt their honest recollection of events, it is apparent that it does not tally with the video. For example Mr Austin did not see Mr Giddings guide Mr Lanch, and Mr Spreckley had Mr Giddings following Mr Lanch and did not see any movement of Mr Giddings arm. We do accept that both Mr Giddings and Mr Lanch did lean their heads together, as accepted by Mr Lanch, and we find that Mr Giddings did punch Mr Lanch, causing him to fall backwards. We reject the suggestion that Mr Lanch dived, although we also find that the punch was not forceful because Mr Lanch was unable to recall what part of his body had been hit, and there were no marks afterwards. However the punch was enough to cause him to lose his balance and fall backwards. We find that the incident shook up Mr Lanch, but that he suffered no physical injuries, and it was apparent that he had made a full recovery by the time of the hearing.
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) This involved a deliberate punch towards a touch judge, albeit after the touch judge had become emotionally involved and both player and touch judge had leaned heads into each other. Nature of actions 19.11.8(d) See the description set out above. Existence of provocation 19.11.8(e) There was no provocation properly so called, but as noted above it did occur after the touch judge had become emotionally involved and both player and touch judge had leaned heads into each other. Whether player retaliated 19.11.8(f) No. Self-defence 19.11.8(g) Not applicable. Effect on victim 19.11.8(h) See above. Shaken up by the incident, but no physical injuries and a full recovery. Effect on match 19.11.8(i) The actions led to Dorking players running to join in (and one was yellow carded). After a delay for treatment the match continued. Vulnerability of victim 19.11.8(j) The touch judge was a match official. He was 60 years old and had had 2 replacement hips. Level of participation/premeditation 19.11.8(k) This started because the player involved himself with the touch judge when he had no reason to do so. His actions were not thought out. Conduct completed/attempted 19.11.8(l) Completed. Other features of player s conduct 19.11.8(m) See above.
PAGE 4 ASSESSMENT OF SERIOUSNESS REGULATION 19.11.8 CONTINUED Entry point Top end* 131 weeks Mid-range Click weeks Low end Click 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: This was a punch of a touch judge. Any punch of a match official means that it will be top end which is 96 weeks or more and a starting point of suspension for life would be considered, see RFU v Lockwood, 29th September 2014. However in this case the punch followed a situation where the touch judge accepted that he had leaned his head in towards the player (as the player had also leaned in his head). Further the punch, while sufficient to knock over the touch judge, was not very strong, the touch judge could not recall where the punch landed, it did not leave any mark, and the touch judge suffered no physical injuries. Taking all these matters into account we determined that an entry point of 131 weeks was appropriate. In aggregate the entry point (131 weeks) and aggravating off field factors (25 weeks) -see below- make a total of 3 years. In these circumstances there is no need to adjust the ban to reflect off field periods, because the intended effect is a 3 year ban. 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) Mr Giddings has a very poor record being punching (2 weeks) in 2007; punching (8 weeks in 2008); and punching (52 weeks) in 2011. He had a ban for 4 weeks for stamping in 2015. This is a serious record in respect of other serious offences, and justifies a further 25 weeks. Need for deterrent 19.11.10(b) No. Any other off-field aggravating factors 19.11.10(c) No. Number of additional weeks: 25 weeks
PAGE 5 RELEVANT OFF-FIELD MITIGATING FACTORS (REGULATION 19.11.11) Acknowledgement of guilt 19.11.11(a) No. Although there had been an indication that he would plead guilty he did not do so. Player s disciplinary record/good character 19.11.11(b) Very poor, but ignored for this purpose to avoid any double counting. Youth & inexperience of player 19.11.11(c) Not applicable. Conduct prior to and at hearing 19.11.11(d) He did not attend either the Chichester RFC internal hearing or this hearing. Remorse & timing of remorse 19.11.11(e) None apparent. Other off-field mitigation 19.11.11(f) It is apparent that he made an effort to turn his game around following his last lengthy ban, but then this incident occurred. Number of weeks deducted: 0 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 14/01/2017 Banned to 14/01/2020 Ban split from Click here to enter a date. Ban split to Click here to enter a date. Free to play 15/01/2020 Total sanction 156 weeks Sending off sufficient 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 Costs 50 Final date for appeal: 28/02/2017 Signature (Chairman) James Dingemans Date 13/02/2017 Signature (Secretary) Roger Edmonson Date entered to GMS 14/02/2017