RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION
RFU COMPETITIONS APPEAL
FILTON HOLIDAY INN, BRISTOL
Date: 5th November 2007
Club: Teddington RFC
To Consider: The decision of the Organising Committee for the EDF Energy Junior Vase (“the OC”) to fine Teddington RFC £50 for a breach of Game Regulation 13.1.1.
Panel: Christopher Quinlan (Chairman), Mike Curling and John Doubleday
Attending: Liam McTiernan (Secretary to the Panel)
Introduction
The Club did not attend and invited us to proceed in its absence.
Facts
During a second round game in the EDF Junior Vase played between Teddington RFC and Raynes Park RFC, the former selected to play one Simon Hall. He played in that game and was not registered. On 4th October 2007 the Club was informed by e-mail from Chris Burns (09:46) that the OC had decided:
(1) Teddington RFC will be fined £50 for a breach of Game Regulation 13.1.1, in playing Simon Hall;
(2) Any further breach of Game Regulation 13 during season 2007/08 will result in automatic disqualification of Teddington RFC from this season’s EDF Energy Junior Vase.
In an e-mail before us, dated 18th October 2007 (18:31) Chris Burns summarises the OC’s reasoning.
Club’s Case
The Club appealed by way of letter, dated 18th October 2007, from Mark Jones, Honorary Secretary. Therein, it states that Simon Hall has been registered with the Club since the beginning of 2006/07 season. It asserts that he “has appeared on all paperwork” and was entered onto official teamsheets and result cards, this season and last, all without incident. It continues, “since the move to online registration, the RFU have dropped him off the list”. In short, he was a registered player. That letter was accompanied by paper copies of a number of e-mails. One of those, from Garth Cross, (26/9/07, 17:02) Director of Rugby, confirms the player did not “appear on the current online version”.
Decision
We considered with care all that was put before 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.”
As can be seen, Regulation 13.1.1 provides in unequivocal terms that “the only conclusive evidence of effective registration is the computerised listing”. There is no dispute that at the relevant time he did not appear on the online registration list. We note in the said e-mail of 18th October that in “mid-August” the Club was sent a registration list. That of course would show whether or not the player in question was registered. The Club has not provided us with a copy of that document. We know not why. The burden is upon the Club to show the OC erred. They did not produce that document nor any evidence sufficient to satisfy us to the requisite standard that at the relevant time the player was registered.
Having regard to the Sanction Guidelines, the sanction imposed in this case was within the permitted discretion of the OC. The Guidelines state that selection of an ineligible player shall result in “in any penalty as Committee may decide, including but not limited to compensation, and/or fine, and/or disqualification from the Senior/Junior Vase of the player and Club involved…”. We could find nothing wrong with the OC approach to sanction.
Accordingly we dismissed the appeal.
Costs
Costs are awarded against the club.
Signed: Christopher Quinlan (Chairman)
Date: 10th November 2007 |
