RFU SHORT JUDGMENT FORM RFU REGULATION 19 Match Cardiff Blues Ospreys Club level 1 Competition Anglo-Welsh Cup Date of match 18/11/2016 Match venue Cardiff PAGE 1 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Player s surname Peikrishvili Date of birth Unknown Forename(s) Anton RFU ID number Club name Cardiff Blues Plea Admitted Not admitted Offence 10.4(m) - Acts contrary to good sportsmanship- Biting SELECT: Red card Citing Other Hearing date 29/11/2016 Hearing venue Bristol Filton Holiday Inn Chairman Roger Morris (WRU) Secretary David Guyan (RFU) Panel member 1 John Doubleday (RFU) Panel member 2 Paul Stannett (RFU) Decision Proven Not proven Other disposal (please state) Click to enter other disposal. HEARING DETAILS ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CITING/REFEREE S REPORT/DVD FOOTAGE The essence of the Referees s written report was as follows:- During an episode of broken play he saw two players (Cardiff Blues No3, Anton Peikrishvili (AP) and the Ospreys No8) grappling on the floor The Ospreys Player was on top of AP and both Players were holding on to each other and face close to face AP s mouth was in contact with the Ospreys player s right cheek As the players were separated the Referee heard the Ospreys player complain tht he had been bitten The Referee exmiend the Ospreys player s cheek and noted teeth marks and reddening in the same area as he had observed AP s mouth making contact Based on this evidence the Referee issued a red card to AP for an offence contrary to Law 10.4.(M) biting The issuing of the red card was delayed for a short time because AP was receigin treatment AP left the field with no dissent but he did claim to have been struck in the back. The DVD Footage showed:- Ospreys in possession of the ball but knocking it on in the midfield The Referee blew his whistle and play started to come to a stop AP was standing a distance from the ball with his back to the Ospreys line The Ospreys No8 (Rob McCusker (RM)) charged into AP catching him the small of his back with his shoulder and with some force AP was knocked to the ground with RM following through so that the two players ended up facing each other and grappling on the ground Players from both teams gathered around the two protagonists and there was some minor shoving and pushing until the Referee separated the two teams As the Referee was assessing and investigating the position, AP was on the ground receiving treatment The Referee showed AP a red card and AP left the field
PAGE 2 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CITING/REFEREE S REPORT/DVD FOOTAGE CONTINUED AP, who the Panel found to be a credible witness, said:- He was some meteres away from the ball when it was knocked on and the Referee blew his whistle AP turned his back and relaxed his body He was then struck in the small of his back with considerable force, from behind, in the small of his back causing him severe pain He was knocked off his feet so that his face hit the ground first RM fell on him and during that process he became pinned on the ground with RM s head burrowing forcefully in to his face His only means of retaliation in order to free himsef was to bite RM s cheek AP accepted that this was a stupid, wrong and illegal act on his part.
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 bite was relatively light (the Ospreys medical team confirmed that there were no marks the following day) and from a position in which the Player had been knocked to the ground and found his opponent pressing his face in to his head. Nature of actions 19.11.8(d) A bite of relatively minor seriousness. Existence of provocation 19.11.8(e) The Player was taken out off the ball and from behind causing him severe pain and landing him on the floor underneath the Ospreys player and pinned to the ground. Whether player retaliated 19.11.8(f) The Player retaliated to the Ospreys players actions as described in 19.11.8(e) Self-defence 19.11.8(g) The Player had no means of defending himself other than as described above. Effect on victim 19.11.8(h) Marking of the skin that had disappeared by the following day. Effect on match 19.11.8(i) A close game became a runaway victory for the opposition after the Player had been sent off. Vulnerability of victim 19.11.8(j) The victim was on top of the Player and if vulnerable, by dint of his own foul play. Level of participation/premeditation 19.11.8(k) Full Conduct completed/attempted 19.11.8(l) Completed Other features of player s conduct 19.11.8(m) None applicable
PAGE 4 ASSESSMENT OF SERIOUSNESS REGULATION 19.11.8 CONTINUED Entry point Top end* Click weeks Mid-range Click weeks Low end 12 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: Relatively minor bite causing transient marking to the opposition player s cheek. Severe provocation on the part of the victim Player who had charged violently and forcefully in to the back of the Player. Pinned to the ground and unable to move the Player claimed his action was in reaction to being in no position to defend himself. 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: 0 weeks
PAGE 5 RELEVANT OFF-FIELD MITIGATING FACTORS (REGULATION 19.11.11) Acknowledgement of guilt 19.11.11(a) Immediate and fulsome Player s disciplinary record/good character 19.11.11(b) No previous record for foul play i.e. no red and no yellow cards for foul play. Youth & inexperience of player 19.11.11(c) but a clean record over such a long period of plying in the front row is noteworthy. Conduct prior to and at hearing 19.11.11(d) Exemplary. Embarrassed to be involved and apologetic for causing the need for a hearing. Remorse & timing of remorse 19.11.11(e) Remorse immediate and compelling. Other off-field mitigation 19.11.11(f) Highly recommended as an exemplary member of his various clubs and his national team. Number of weeks deducted: 6 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 18/12/2016 Banned to 02/01/2017 Ban split from Click here to enter a date. Ban split to Click here to enter a date. Free to play 03/01/2017 Total sanction 6 weeks Sending off sufficient NOTE: UNDER RFU REGULATION 19.5.2, PLAYERS ORDERED OFF ARE PROVISSIONALLY SUSPENDED PENDING THE HEARING OF THEIR CASE, SUCH SUSPENSION SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN SANCTIONING Costs 500 Final date for appeal: 06/12/2016 Signature (Chairman) Roger Morris Date 01/12/2016 Signature (Secretary) David Guyan Date entered to GMS