RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION
RFU COMPETITIONS APPEAL
FILTON HOLIDAY INN, BRISTOL
Date: 5 November 2007
Club: Oxford Harlequins RFC
To consider: The decision of the Organising Committee for the EDF Energy National Trophy (“the OC”) to disqualify Oxford Harlequins RFC from this season’s EDF Energy National Trophy with immediate effect for a breach of Game Regulation 13.1.1.
Panel: Christopher Quinlan (Chairman), Michael Curling and John Doubleday (“the Panel”)
Attending: Liam McTiernan - Secretary to the Panel
Paul Kaminski - Comp. Sub-Comm. & Mids League Chairman
David Woodward – Oxford Harlequins RFC (First XV Manager)
Keith Latham - Oxford Harlequins RFC (Club Secretary)
Matthew Maudsley – Oxford Harlequins RFC (D.o.R.)
Introduction
No objection was raised to the composition of the Panel.
Facts
The essential facts were not in dispute and can be stated shortly. On 20th September, Mark Herbert registered with Oxford Harlequins RFC. Together with Matthew Maudsley he completed a registration form for submission to the First Eleven. In the process of so doing, Mr. Herbert ended the name of his previous club Keyworth RFC for whom he played (“casually”) last season whilst a student at Nottingham University. Upon being asked by Mr. Maudsley, he said he was not sure whether he registered with Keyworth and so that club’s name was scribbled out on the form. The form was then posted to First Eleven, but not accompanied by a stamped address envelope.
Mr. Maudsley called and spoke with Bob Morrison, at First Eleven, on 27th September. He said he enquired about the registration of four players, including Mark Herbert. Mr Morrison told him he could not “refer to individual players” because he “had a stack in front of him”. We were told that Mr. Morrison also said he was “busy” and referred the Club to the website. Instead and before Mark Herbert played, David Woodward made repeated (at least five) attempts to access the relevant website to check the status. Through no fault of his, those were unsuccessful.
In the event, Mr. Herbert was selected and played against Paignton RFC on 13th October.
Mr. Latham told us he returned to this country on 13th October and the following day opened a letter from Rugby First informing him that Mr. Herbert’s registration had not been completed. The form was returned and date-stamped 26th September, which showed Mr. Latham told us the date it was processed. Written underneath that date were the words, “no transfer notification”. It was said on the Club’s behalf that the postal strike was responsible for their late receipt of that letter.
The decision of the Organising Committee for the EDF Energy National Trophy was to:
(1) Disqualify Oxford Harlequins RFC from this season’s EDF Energy National Trophy with immediate effect.
(2) Impose no financial penalty.
(3) Oxford Harlequins RFC will be entitled to claim the Round 1 losers’ money.
(4) Oxford Harlequins RFC will be entitled to enter next season’s RFU knockout cup competitions, subject to meeting the entry criteria.
That decision was communicated to Mr. Latham by e-mail on 23rd October 2007, at 22:03. It is that decision against which the Club appeals.
Oxford Harlequins’ Submissions
Oxford Harlequins appealed by way of a letter from Matthew Maudlsey to Bruce Reece-Russel, RFU Disciplinary Manager, dated 25th October 2007. Mr. Maudsley presented the Club’s appeal assisted by the other persons present from Oxford Harlequins. In addition to his and their submissions, he provided us with:
(1) A helpful and detailed chronology of events;
(2) An e-mail and letter from Mark Herbert;
(3) An informative e-mail from Chris Burns (on behalf of the OC) setting out the reasoning behind the said decision.
Without wishing to do any injustice to the detailed nature of the submissions made, it seems to us the essential point was that the Club asserted it had done all it could reasonably be expected to ensure Mark Herbert was registered before he played. The combination of the Club’s inability, through no fault of its own, to access the relevant website and the postal strike meant it was not informed expeditiously of the difficulties with Mr. Herbert’s registration. Still further, Bob Morrison had not told the Club of the difficulties when he should have known of them, the registration having been processed (by him or one of his team) the day before he spoke with Mr. Maudsley. In the circumstances, what more could it have done?
Decision
We considered with care all that was put before us, both in writing and orally during the course of the hearing. Mr. Kaminski, who whilst expressing sympathy for the Club, submitted that it had breached Regulation 13.1.1 and the OC had done no more than apply properly the sanction guidelines assisted us.
The starting point is Game Regulation 13.1.1 which provides: “A Club may only play or select as a replacement or substitute players who hold Effective Registration for that Club in accordance with the Player Registration Regulations. The only conclusive evidence of Effective Registration is the Computerised Listing held by the RFU as at kick-off time of the match in which such players play. Each Club is responsible for ensuring its strict compliance with this Game Regulation and must take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance.”
There was no issue before us that Mark Herbert played on 13th October at a time when he was not registered. Further, the Club accepted that at that time it had received no notification as to whether or not the registration had been effected.
Regulation 6.1 of the Player Registration 2007/2008 Operating Procedures provides: “No Club may assume that an application for registration of a Player will result in Effective Registration unless and until he has received a Computerised Listing showing the date of Effective Registration for that Player.”
If we may say, we can well understand the sense of frustration felt by the Club. Its officers could not access the very site designed to inform them of a player’s registration status. Further, the postal strike may well have caused important correspondence to be delayed. Mr. Morrison did not tell them of the problems, but then he did make it clear he could not comment on individual applications. Whatever he said, he did not imply anything about the status of the registration and nothing should have been inferred from it.
There were a number of steps which might have been taken and which were not. We asked about the sending of a fax to be told such would not be “accepted”. Pressed as to what that meant, we were told that in fact no thought was given to the sending of a fax. Further telephone calls could have been made, notwithstanding the concern that they might “not be well received” (my words).
Ultimately in our view it comes down to a single and indisputable fact: they played Mark Herbert without knowing whether or not he was in fact registered. It might be said the Club took a chance or assumed he was registered. Regulation 6 above specifically prohibits the making of such assumption. That was an error of judgment. Further, it cannot be said that in this case the Club took “all reasonable steps to ensure compliance.” Each would have presented an insurmountable hurdle for the Club. Taken together, they were fatal to the appeal.
Having regard to the Sanction Guidelines, the sanctions imposed in this case were ones within the permitted discretion of the OC. In fact the Guidelines state that selection of an ineligible player shall result in “automatic disqualification from the Competition for the current season of the player and Club involved…”. We could find nothing wrong with the OC’s approach to sanction.
Accordingly we dismissed the appeal.
Costs
Costs of £100 are awarded against the club.
Signed: Christopher Quinlan (Chairman)
Dated: 9th November 2007 |
