1 INTERNATIONAL RUGBY BOARD WOMEN'S RURBY WORLD CUP ...
INTERNATIONAL RUGBY BOARD WOMEN’S RURBY WORLD CUP 2014 JUDICIAL OFFICER’S HEARING REPORT Hearing: 15 August 2014
JUDGMENT
JUDICIAL OFFICER: Jeremy Summers, England PLAYER: Rebecca de FILIPPO, Wales (“the Player”) MATCH: New Zealand v Wales VENUE: Stade Jean Bouin, Paris DATE OF MATCH: 13 August 2014 REFEREE: Claire Hodnett (RFU) IN ATTENDANCE: The Player Sophie Bennett, Wales Team Manager Mr Ben Rutherford, Tournament Designated Disciplinary Officer (“DDO”)
DECISION 1. The Player accepted that she was guilty of an offence contrary to Law 10.4(j) (dangerous tip tackle). 2. I considered that a sanction was required and a period of suspension was accordingly imposed. 3. As set out at paragraph 29 below the Player was suspended for a period of 2 weeks. The suspension will be served as to 1 tournament match at WRWC2014 together with a further week from 1 to 7 September 2014 inclusive. 4. The Player is free to play again on 8 September 2014.
1
PRELIMINARIES 5. The hearing was convened by the DDO pursuant to The Tournament Disciplinary Programme (“TDP”) contained in the WRWC 2014 Terms of Participation and followed the citing of the Player by the appointed independent Citing Commissioner in consequence of an incident that arisen in the match, which had been played in Round 4 of the tournament. 6. The Player confirmed her identity and that she had been wearing Wales 12 during the match. 7. I introduced all persons present and confirmed that the Player had received the Referee’s Report, the match recording and all other papers in good time for the hearing. 8. In light of the narrative set out in the Citing Commissioner’s report detailed below, which made reference to the involvement of W4, I was mindful of the ruling on appeal in the case of De Bruin (JRWC 2013) and requested that consideration was accordingly given to that decision. I was grateful to the DDO for doing so and forming the view that in this particular instance it was not necessary to invite the Citing Commissioner to review the matter further. Having subsequently had the opportunity to consider the footage I concurred with that assessment. 9. In advance of the hearing I asked that a number of questions were put to the Player (pursuant to the power available to me to issue a pre hearing direction under regulation 2.2 (a) to Appendix 5 TDP. The questions and the response submitted on behalf of the Player are set out below: 1) Does the Player accept she is the player (Wales #12) identified in the citing? Yes 2) Does the Player intend to raise any preliminary issues? Nothing ahead of the hearing. 3) Does the Player accept that she committed an act of foul play (if not briefly summarise her case in this regard)? Yes subject to mitigating factors that will be raised at the hearing. 4) Does the Player agree with the description of the incident as recorded by the Citing Commissioner (if not briefly explain the case to be advanced)? Yes subject to representation being made at the hearing. 5) If medical evidence is served is this challenged? (Note: any medical evidence from the NZRU will be provided as soon as possible tonight once received) Nothing ahead of the hearing 6) Does the Player wish to advance any other substantive issues (if so please list)? Nothing ahead of the hearing. 10. I considered: a. The Citing Commissioner’s Report. b. The match recording. 2
c. An e-mail sent by the Referee dated 14 August 2014 on behalf of the match officials. d. E-mails from Cate Sexton, Manger New Zealand dated 14 and 15 August 2014. e. Oral evidence from the Player. f. Submissions on behalf of the Player. THE CITING 11. The Referee’s Report indicated that the incident had occurred in the 18th minute of the second half at which point New Zealand were leading 46-7. The incident was recorded as follows: NZ develop an attack on the left side, and create a first ruck close to the touch line, then change direction. Create a second ruck, 10m from the touch line, 30 m from Wales scoreline, the # 9 NZ (the Player) takes the ball and attacks close to the ruck. #4 Wales tries to tackle the Player and #12 Wales, with the participation of #4 Wales, comes and lifts that Player from the ground, twists her in the air and drops her onto the ground. The neck and upper body of the Player are first in contact with the ground. The player not injured plays on. 12. The Report was read to the Player who formally accepted that she had committed an act of foul play. 13. The footage was then viewed with the Player. Four angles were available to me which I considered in real time and slow motion. The footage showed an incident as set out in the following paragraph. I reviewed this with the Player who agreed with my narrative description of the incident. 14. NZ were attacking in the Welsh half as indicated by the Citing Commissioner. The ball had been recycled at a ruck and NZ9 picked up the ball to commence a further phase. The Player is in the defensive line immediately behind the ruck and W4 is positioned about 1 metre to its left. NZ9 breaks right towards W4 seeking to exploit the gap between the Player and W4. Both Welsh players commit to the tackle. W4 effects a lawful tackle around the midriff of NZ9. Almost simultaneously the Player makes contact with her left arm wrapping around NZ9’s body. Her right hand then takes hold of NZ9’s right leg which is then lifted from the ground. The Player’s right elbow is clearly seen to bend in a lifting action. This takes the right leg through the horizontal and into a near vertical position. W4 is still effecting her tackle which adds to the dynamic, and NZ9’s body is turned through to a largely vertical position. The Player remains in contact with NZ9 thus adding to the force of her fall. NZ9’s right elbow may have made the first contact with the ground but this is very closely followed by her right shoulder and then neck and/or head. 15. An e-mail from the Referee stated that she had been following play and therefore had only a partial sighting of the incident. On the basis of that limited view she had not at 3
the time perceived the tackle to have been dangerous. Neither Assistant Referee had seen the incident. 16. An e-mail from New Zealand indicated that NZ9 could recall the incident and believed that she had landed on her head. No head or neck injuries had been apparent at the time or after the game. There was some minor back pain but NZ9 had played on immediately and was fit for the next game.
MITIGATION 17. The Player gave evidence. She had come off the back of the ruck and had seen NZ9 attack her channel. She had led with her outside shoulder and gone in at an angle to NZ9. She had intended to effect a low squeeze and so drive NZ9 back as she had been coached. Because NZ9 was lighter than other players she normally tackles, her “squeeze” had lifted NZ9 who had then rotated. She candidly conceded that NZ9 had been placed in a “terrible position” and that it had been a “terrible tackle”. 18. She had stayed on the ground after the tackle to check that NZ9 was uninjured and had gone to apologise to her immediately after the game. She volunteered before me that she should have been more responsible and that it was an “unacceptable tackle” 19. The Player is 20 years old and has played rugby for 10 years with a previously unblemished disciplinary record. She has won 20 full caps for Wales and also represented her country at Sevens. Domestically she plays for Exeter University and Bristol. I was informed that the Women’s rugby season in England will resume again in the first week of September. 20. Ms Bennett advised me that the Player was a key member of the squad and highly respected. The Player had been shocked by the incident which was wholly out of character. She too agreed that the tackle was unacceptable but submitted that it was absent of any malice and that the Player was extremely remorseful. 21. She was aware that a similar offence had been dealt with earlier in the tournament and submitted that this offending very much less serious. 22. I then reviewed with the parties the entry point criteria and also the aggravating and mitigating features that I would have to consider. Ms Bennett submitted that the offending was reckless but did not urge me to find that it had not merited no sanction. No submissions were made as to whether I should consider any sanction to be wholly disproportionate to the type of offending involved.
FINDINGS 23. I carefully reviewed all the evidence before me. I found that the Player had lifted NZ9 off the ground who had then rotated into a vertical position. Whilst the tackle effected 4
by W4 contributed to the dynamics of the situation the prime factor, by some distance, of NZ9 being taken through the horizontal was the Player using her right arm to lift NZ9’s right leg. Thereafter the Player had come down on top of NZ9 increasing the force of her descent. No attempt had been made to bring NZ9 down safely. Whilst the first point of contact with the ground may have been the elbow, NZ9’s neck and/or lower head had hit the ground whilst her legs were still in the air. 24. NZ9 was able to play on without requiring treatment. The incident did not provoke any reaction from any other player and, at first blush, the Referee had not instinctively felt that dangerous play had occurred. 25. In my view, given the potential for serious or catastrophic injury to result, the offending was of sufficient seriousness to warrant the imposition of a sanction and I accordingly proceeded to consider the factors set out in 11.10.2 TDP. In this respect I found as follows:
a) The Player had not acted intentionally. b) The offending was though plainly reckless. As the Player herself stated it was a terrible and unacceptable tackle. c) The gravamen of the offending was NZ9 being lifted into a near vertical position with the attendant risk that serious injury could have resulted. The Player then did little or nothing to mitigate that risk. d) The offending was as set out in paragraph 14 above. e) There was no provocation. f)
The offending was not retaliatory.
g) Self-defence was not in issue. h) No material injury was sustained. i)
There was no effect on the game.
j)
NZ9 was taken into a largely vertical position and so inherently vulnerable.
k) There was no premeditation. l)
The conduct was complete.
m) There were no other relevant factors constituting the Player’s offending. 26. In light of these findings, I categorised the offence as being at the LOW END of the scale of seriousness. I had close regard to the gravity of this type of offending, but was satisfied that on the facts of this incident it was not a particularly serious example of this genre of foul play. 27. The low end entry point for this offence is however a suspension of 4 weeks.
5
28. I considered the aggravating features set out in 11.10.4 TDP and had regard to the IRB Memorandum of 8 June 2009 relating to Dangerous Tackles, which remains in effect. The terms of that Memorandum frequently result in an increase being applied to the entry point to reflect the need to deter this type of offending. I therefore gave serious consideration as to whether an increase in the entry point was required in this case, but determined that, on the specific facts before me, the offending was not of sufficient seriousness as to warrant an increase in the entry point. No suggestion should however be inferred from that finding that an increased entry point might not ordinarily be appropriate for offending of this type so as to give effect to the Memorandum. 29. Having regard to the mitigating features that I am able to consider in 11.10.5 TDP, in particular the Player having accepted the offending, clear record and remorse I determined that the Player was entitled to the maximum 50% credit permissible in mitigation, resulting in a 2 week deduction from the prescribed entry point.
SANCTION 30. The Player was accordingly suspended for a period of 2 weeks. Having regard to the provisions of 11.10.14 TPD the suspension was imposed to take effect as to:
The final match to be played by Wales at WRWC 2010 on 17 August 2014; and The week of 1st to 7th September 2014 inclusive.
31. The Player is accordingly free to play again on 8 September 2014. RIGHT OF APPEAL 32. I advised the Player of her right of appeal as set out in TDP. Notice of any such appeal must be received in writing by the DDO within 48 hours of receipt of this judgment.
Jeremy Summers Judicial Officer 15 August 2014
6
JUDGMENT
JUDICIAL OFFICER: Jeremy Summers, England PLAYER: Rebecca de FILIPPO, Wales (“the Player”) MATCH: New Zealand v Wales VENUE: Stade Jean Bouin, Paris DATE OF MATCH: 13 August 2014 REFEREE: Claire Hodnett (RFU) IN ATTENDANCE: The Player Sophie Bennett, Wales Team Manager Mr Ben Rutherford, Tournament Designated Disciplinary Officer (“DDO”)
DECISION 1. The Player accepted that she was guilty of an offence contrary to Law 10.4(j) (dangerous tip tackle). 2. I considered that a sanction was required and a period of suspension was accordingly imposed. 3. As set out at paragraph 29 below the Player was suspended for a period of 2 weeks. The suspension will be served as to 1 tournament match at WRWC2014 together with a further week from 1 to 7 September 2014 inclusive. 4. The Player is free to play again on 8 September 2014.
1
PRELIMINARIES 5. The hearing was convened by the DDO pursuant to The Tournament Disciplinary Programme (“TDP”) contained in the WRWC 2014 Terms of Participation and followed the citing of the Player by the appointed independent Citing Commissioner in consequence of an incident that arisen in the match, which had been played in Round 4 of the tournament. 6. The Player confirmed her identity and that she had been wearing Wales 12 during the match. 7. I introduced all persons present and confirmed that the Player had received the Referee’s Report, the match recording and all other papers in good time for the hearing. 8. In light of the narrative set out in the Citing Commissioner’s report detailed below, which made reference to the involvement of W4, I was mindful of the ruling on appeal in the case of De Bruin (JRWC 2013) and requested that consideration was accordingly given to that decision. I was grateful to the DDO for doing so and forming the view that in this particular instance it was not necessary to invite the Citing Commissioner to review the matter further. Having subsequently had the opportunity to consider the footage I concurred with that assessment. 9. In advance of the hearing I asked that a number of questions were put to the Player (pursuant to the power available to me to issue a pre hearing direction under regulation 2.2 (a) to Appendix 5 TDP. The questions and the response submitted on behalf of the Player are set out below: 1) Does the Player accept she is the player (Wales #12) identified in the citing? Yes 2) Does the Player intend to raise any preliminary issues? Nothing ahead of the hearing. 3) Does the Player accept that she committed an act of foul play (if not briefly summarise her case in this regard)? Yes subject to mitigating factors that will be raised at the hearing. 4) Does the Player agree with the description of the incident as recorded by the Citing Commissioner (if not briefly explain the case to be advanced)? Yes subject to representation being made at the hearing. 5) If medical evidence is served is this challenged? (Note: any medical evidence from the NZRU will be provided as soon as possible tonight once received) Nothing ahead of the hearing 6) Does the Player wish to advance any other substantive issues (if so please list)? Nothing ahead of the hearing. 10. I considered: a. The Citing Commissioner’s Report. b. The match recording. 2
c. An e-mail sent by the Referee dated 14 August 2014 on behalf of the match officials. d. E-mails from Cate Sexton, Manger New Zealand dated 14 and 15 August 2014. e. Oral evidence from the Player. f. Submissions on behalf of the Player. THE CITING 11. The Referee’s Report indicated that the incident had occurred in the 18th minute of the second half at which point New Zealand were leading 46-7. The incident was recorded as follows: NZ develop an attack on the left side, and create a first ruck close to the touch line, then change direction. Create a second ruck, 10m from the touch line, 30 m from Wales scoreline, the # 9 NZ (the Player) takes the ball and attacks close to the ruck. #4 Wales tries to tackle the Player and #12 Wales, with the participation of #4 Wales, comes and lifts that Player from the ground, twists her in the air and drops her onto the ground. The neck and upper body of the Player are first in contact with the ground. The player not injured plays on. 12. The Report was read to the Player who formally accepted that she had committed an act of foul play. 13. The footage was then viewed with the Player. Four angles were available to me which I considered in real time and slow motion. The footage showed an incident as set out in the following paragraph. I reviewed this with the Player who agreed with my narrative description of the incident. 14. NZ were attacking in the Welsh half as indicated by the Citing Commissioner. The ball had been recycled at a ruck and NZ9 picked up the ball to commence a further phase. The Player is in the defensive line immediately behind the ruck and W4 is positioned about 1 metre to its left. NZ9 breaks right towards W4 seeking to exploit the gap between the Player and W4. Both Welsh players commit to the tackle. W4 effects a lawful tackle around the midriff of NZ9. Almost simultaneously the Player makes contact with her left arm wrapping around NZ9’s body. Her right hand then takes hold of NZ9’s right leg which is then lifted from the ground. The Player’s right elbow is clearly seen to bend in a lifting action. This takes the right leg through the horizontal and into a near vertical position. W4 is still effecting her tackle which adds to the dynamic, and NZ9’s body is turned through to a largely vertical position. The Player remains in contact with NZ9 thus adding to the force of her fall. NZ9’s right elbow may have made the first contact with the ground but this is very closely followed by her right shoulder and then neck and/or head. 15. An e-mail from the Referee stated that she had been following play and therefore had only a partial sighting of the incident. On the basis of that limited view she had not at 3
the time perceived the tackle to have been dangerous. Neither Assistant Referee had seen the incident. 16. An e-mail from New Zealand indicated that NZ9 could recall the incident and believed that she had landed on her head. No head or neck injuries had been apparent at the time or after the game. There was some minor back pain but NZ9 had played on immediately and was fit for the next game.
MITIGATION 17. The Player gave evidence. She had come off the back of the ruck and had seen NZ9 attack her channel. She had led with her outside shoulder and gone in at an angle to NZ9. She had intended to effect a low squeeze and so drive NZ9 back as she had been coached. Because NZ9 was lighter than other players she normally tackles, her “squeeze” had lifted NZ9 who had then rotated. She candidly conceded that NZ9 had been placed in a “terrible position” and that it had been a “terrible tackle”. 18. She had stayed on the ground after the tackle to check that NZ9 was uninjured and had gone to apologise to her immediately after the game. She volunteered before me that she should have been more responsible and that it was an “unacceptable tackle” 19. The Player is 20 years old and has played rugby for 10 years with a previously unblemished disciplinary record. She has won 20 full caps for Wales and also represented her country at Sevens. Domestically she plays for Exeter University and Bristol. I was informed that the Women’s rugby season in England will resume again in the first week of September. 20. Ms Bennett advised me that the Player was a key member of the squad and highly respected. The Player had been shocked by the incident which was wholly out of character. She too agreed that the tackle was unacceptable but submitted that it was absent of any malice and that the Player was extremely remorseful. 21. She was aware that a similar offence had been dealt with earlier in the tournament and submitted that this offending very much less serious. 22. I then reviewed with the parties the entry point criteria and also the aggravating and mitigating features that I would have to consider. Ms Bennett submitted that the offending was reckless but did not urge me to find that it had not merited no sanction. No submissions were made as to whether I should consider any sanction to be wholly disproportionate to the type of offending involved.
FINDINGS 23. I carefully reviewed all the evidence before me. I found that the Player had lifted NZ9 off the ground who had then rotated into a vertical position. Whilst the tackle effected 4
by W4 contributed to the dynamics of the situation the prime factor, by some distance, of NZ9 being taken through the horizontal was the Player using her right arm to lift NZ9’s right leg. Thereafter the Player had come down on top of NZ9 increasing the force of her descent. No attempt had been made to bring NZ9 down safely. Whilst the first point of contact with the ground may have been the elbow, NZ9’s neck and/or lower head had hit the ground whilst her legs were still in the air. 24. NZ9 was able to play on without requiring treatment. The incident did not provoke any reaction from any other player and, at first blush, the Referee had not instinctively felt that dangerous play had occurred. 25. In my view, given the potential for serious or catastrophic injury to result, the offending was of sufficient seriousness to warrant the imposition of a sanction and I accordingly proceeded to consider the factors set out in 11.10.2 TDP. In this respect I found as follows:
a) The Player had not acted intentionally. b) The offending was though plainly reckless. As the Player herself stated it was a terrible and unacceptable tackle. c) The gravamen of the offending was NZ9 being lifted into a near vertical position with the attendant risk that serious injury could have resulted. The Player then did little or nothing to mitigate that risk. d) The offending was as set out in paragraph 14 above. e) There was no provocation. f)
The offending was not retaliatory.
g) Self-defence was not in issue. h) No material injury was sustained. i)
There was no effect on the game.
j)
NZ9 was taken into a largely vertical position and so inherently vulnerable.
k) There was no premeditation. l)
The conduct was complete.
m) There were no other relevant factors constituting the Player’s offending. 26. In light of these findings, I categorised the offence as being at the LOW END of the scale of seriousness. I had close regard to the gravity of this type of offending, but was satisfied that on the facts of this incident it was not a particularly serious example of this genre of foul play. 27. The low end entry point for this offence is however a suspension of 4 weeks.
5
28. I considered the aggravating features set out in 11.10.4 TDP and had regard to the IRB Memorandum of 8 June 2009 relating to Dangerous Tackles, which remains in effect. The terms of that Memorandum frequently result in an increase being applied to the entry point to reflect the need to deter this type of offending. I therefore gave serious consideration as to whether an increase in the entry point was required in this case, but determined that, on the specific facts before me, the offending was not of sufficient seriousness as to warrant an increase in the entry point. No suggestion should however be inferred from that finding that an increased entry point might not ordinarily be appropriate for offending of this type so as to give effect to the Memorandum. 29. Having regard to the mitigating features that I am able to consider in 11.10.5 TDP, in particular the Player having accepted the offending, clear record and remorse I determined that the Player was entitled to the maximum 50% credit permissible in mitigation, resulting in a 2 week deduction from the prescribed entry point.
SANCTION 30. The Player was accordingly suspended for a period of 2 weeks. Having regard to the provisions of 11.10.14 TPD the suspension was imposed to take effect as to:
The final match to be played by Wales at WRWC 2010 on 17 August 2014; and The week of 1st to 7th September 2014 inclusive.
31. The Player is accordingly free to play again on 8 September 2014. RIGHT OF APPEAL 32. I advised the Player of her right of appeal as set out in TDP. Notice of any such appeal must be received in writing by the DDO within 48 hours of receipt of this judgment.
Jeremy Summers Judicial Officer 15 August 2014
6
