RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION
DISCIPLINARY HEARING
JUDGMENT
At: Holiday Inn, Brighouse
On: Wednesday, 2nd April 2008
Club: Chester RFC (“the Club”)
Panel: Antony Davies (Chairman), Clif Barker
Attending: Peter Rhodes (representing Chester RFC)
Steve Donovan (Chester RFC Director of Rugby)
Dudley Gibbs (RFU Northern Competitions Committee)
Mike Drew (Stockport RFC Director of Rugby)
Secretary: Liam McTiernan
To Consider
1. An appeal by the Club against the decision of the North Competitions Committee (“NCC”) requiring the Club to play its North 2 (West) League game against Stockport RFC, originally scheduled for Saturday 12th April 2008, on Saturday 5th April 2008, the Club’s initial appeal to NCC having been dismissed on 26th March 2008.
Preliminary Matters
2. There were no objections to the composition of the Panel, nor to the Panel sitting with two members.
3. Mr. Gibbs, on behalf of NCC, raised a preliminary matter. He asked us to rule on the legality of the appeal by the Club. He referred us to RFU North Division Administrative Rules Season 2007/2008, and particularly Rule 3 as set out on pages 297-298 of the RFU Handbook. The relevant part thereof reads as follows: “All appeals must be in writing and should be addressed to the Secretary of the RFU North Competitions Committee and must be lodged within seven days (forty eight hours in the case of decision involving the next available weekend) of receiving notice of a decision. A fee of £50.00 is required and no appeal or complaint will be heard if the cheque does not accompany the application, except where the appeal relates to fines.”
4. Mr. Gibbs argued that as the Club’s cheque dated 21st March 2008 was appended to a note dated 24th March 2008 apologising for its lateness, which was only received by the League Secretary on 1st April 2008, there was a technical breach of the North Division Administrative Rules. It was clear the cheque did not accompany the appeal application. Accordingly, there could have been no valid appeal, hence NCC not notifying the Club of its rights of further appeal to an RFU Panel.
5. Mr. Rhodes did not dispute the factual position with regard to the lateness of the cheque, but maintained that NCC had actually heard their appeal because the notification refusing that appeal referred to an overwhelming majority having voted. This indicated a de facto hearing had been conducted and accordingly NCC had waived the requirements set out in its own Rules. Having been informed of NCC’s decision, the Club had a legitimate expectation of a right of appeal. In any event, he said, we had an inherent jurisdiction pursuant to the rules of natural justice to allow the appeal to be considered.
6. We considered these arguments as a preliminary matter and were not enamoured of the suggestion made by Mr. Gibbs in this regard. His Committee had clearly considered the merits of the Club’s appeal. It had done so in breach of its own Rules. In our view, it cannot consider the merits of the Club’s appeal, refuse that appeal but then seek to hide behind its Rules and seek to say the Club has no right of further appeal. In our view, they have clearly waived their own requirements. We are dealing here with a situation caused by the considerable success of a Club in the League and Cup and do not intend to be deflected by an apparently inconsistent and unfair application of Rules. We therefore have no hesitation in dismissing NCC’s submissions.
7. Mr. Rhodes then raised a preliminary matter on behalf of the Club. If that were determined in the Club’s favour, there would be no need to proceed to consider the merits of the Club’s appeal. We elected to deal with this as a second preliminary matter.
8. Mr. Rhodes referred the Panel to Game Regulation (“GR”) 18.5.1, which states: “A League Match shall be replayed on the Next Available Weekend unless some other date is specified by the Committee”.
He submitted that that meant the NCC could only look at a next available date after the originally scheduled fixture, not before. If it were intended that NCC could specify any date, there would be no need for reference to “next available weekend”. If the power extended to any date, then there would be no need for the words “next available weekend” and to Mr. Rhodes’ mind the Regulation clearly intended postponement to mean later and certainly not earlier or before the originally scheduled date. Accordingly, the NCC had misapplied its mind to the interpretation of GR 18.5.1 and their decision to order the game to be played one week early on 5th April 2008 was therefore invalid. We find this something of a novel interpretation and whilst we commend Mr. Rhodes for his courage in advancing it, we prefer to look at the definition section of the RFU Handbook 2007/2008 which on page 120 defines “next available weekend” as follows:
“The first available and next following weekend (which may include a weekend PRIOR (our emphasis) to that upon which a match in the competition was originally scheduled to be played).”
8. This seems quite clear to us. Indeed, when we asked for his comments, Mr. Rhodes was unable to advance any cogent argument as to why we should not conclude NCC had the power to order a game to be played before its originally scheduled date. Accordingly, we dismissed this preliminary point brought on behalf of the Club.
9. We now deal with the merits of the appeal brought by the Club.
Background and Chronology
10. The Club play in League North 2 (West). They are currently top of that League with two games to play and will either win the League outright, thus securing automatic promotion to North 1 (Level 5) or will finish runners-up and will then play a play-off game against the runners-up in League North 2 East for such promotion. They have also reached the final of the EDF Intermediate Cup. Under the structured season, the final of the Cup takes place at Twickenham on Saturday 12th April 2008, when the Club is otherwise due to play Stockport RFC in the League. Stockport are currently second in North 2 (West) and mathematically it is possible for them to win the League outright, thus consigning Chester to the play-off place. It would however require a significant points difference deficit to be surmounted. It is not disputed that Cup finals take precedence over League games and the Chester/Stockport League game on 12th April has to be rearranged.
11. We noted that Mr. Ken Potter, North 2 (West) League Secretary, foresaw this potential problem well before the Club had even played its semi-final. As early as 7th March 2008, NCC made contingency plans and after consultation notified the Club on 15th March that its fixture on 12th April would now be played on 5th April, i.e. one week earlier. On 19th March 2008, the Club objected. The Club’s objections at that stage were as follows:
(i) The date was not the first free Saturday after the original fixture date and they had always assumed that it would be played later. It had never occurred to them that it could be played earlier;
(ii) 5th April had been a free date all season. Plans had been made by players and coaches to attend a wedding party and it would not be fair to them to ask them to alter their social plans;
(iii) By moving the game forward, the Club players would not get what they regarded as a “planned rest weekend” which they felt could now jeopardise their position in the League and in the EDF Cup final the following week.
(iv) As a compromise, the Club suggested the game could be played under floodlights as a mid-week fixture after their Cup final so as not to interfere with the play-off dates set out in the structured season.
12. On 23rd March 2008, Stockport RFC objected to the mid-week suggestion, as it would give insufficient time for travelling and preparation. They had been in an almost identical situation two years beforehand with a crucial League game one week before their Twickenham final. They had never sought to treat a free date as a rest weekend and would not have allowed their players to take it as such. The play-off dates were, to their minds, sacrosanct and there was no other convenient date. They had known since mid-March that their April fixtures were Chester away on 5th April 2008, Tyldesley at home on 19th April 2008 and the play-offs on 26th, and had planned accordingly.
13. On 26th March 2008, the Club’s appeal was determined by NCC and the refusal notified to them. They now appeal to us.
The Club’s Case
14. The Club now advances arguments in support of its appeal which were not advanced to NCC. As we have dismissed their argument that rearranged games cannot be played prior, they now say that we have the power to alter the play-off date. However, they remain physically capable of playing the game on 5th April. They will have a full team which will not be weakened, but that uppermost in their mind is the psychological and physical welfare of their players. They explained to us that with an impending final at Twickenham one week later, their players are likely to be worried about injury and missing out on the opportunity of a lifetime. There is an increased risk of injury by “holding back” or not being fully committed to physical contact. They also told us that this mindset could affect their promotion chances if their superior points difference of 158 could be overhauled in two games.
15. The Club now suggests postponing the play-off date, or alternatively declaring a 0-0 draw in the Chester/Stockport game. This would be unlikely to affect the play-off position as the chances of them not taking the League and Stockport finishing second are very slim. Given that their Cup final opponents will be “rested and uninjured”, they felt that the significant inconvenience to the teams in North 2 (East) of postponing the play-off date was justified. Their players would probably never again get an opportunity to play at Twickenham.
16. The Club confirmed that these points had not been advanced to NCC and, under questioning by us, stated that at the start of the season they had no inkling that they might be in a Cup final and top of their League. They were after all only at Level 6 and could not be credited with sufficient foresight and a sufficiently thorough understanding of the game and Cup Regulations under which they had played the season thus far.
NCC Case
17. Mr. Gibbs stated to us that the play-off dates were to be regarded as sacrosanct and not within the gift of a divisional organising Committee. Any change to a structured season date would have to go before RFU governance and/or RFU Council. They had always maintained significant concern over the consequential effect of using the play-off dates for a League match because postponement of them could only be into the County Championship weekends, which the structured season was designed in part to avoid. There would therefore be a substantial knock-on effect.
18. The Chester/Stockport game could be played, which was always to be preferable to not playing it. Clubs at Level 6 contract with the RFU to use best endeavours to play all games.
19. Mr. Gibbs explained to us that the decision had been taken in the interests of all the Clubs in the League, including North 2 (East) and (West). They had not been impressed with the suggestion made to them that dispensation should be given for Chester players to go on a “stag do” or wedding. They had considered whether there was any merit in waiting to see how results unfolded, but concluded there was no merit in that course. His Committee had weighed up the interests of the Club against the other parties involved and on a balance of convenience found unanimously the only way forward was to order the game to be played on 5th April 2008.
The Position of Stockport RFC
20. We considered our powers under Disciplinary Regulation 12.3.6 and felt that we should hear from Stockport RFC. Mr. Drew re-stated the matters advanced to NCC and explained that the result of the game against the Club was of considerable significance and importance to his Club. Additionally, he told us whether they won or lost to Chester would be important in determining home advantage for the play-off.
Findings
21. We have looked very carefully into the arguments advanced by the Club in its appeal and weighed the merits of these against the significant body of organisations and individuals who would be adversely affected, in some cases to a considerable degree, by our allowing the Club what it seeks, effectively the best possible preparation for their Cup final. We have considered the grounds advanced firstly to NCC in that appeal, and secondly the different grounds advanced to us tonight. We can find no compelling argument in favour of the Club’s appeal.
22. The Club plays at Level 6 and is all but certain to play at Level 5 next season. To our mind, it cannot hide behind apparent ignorance of the structured season dates, nor the League and Cup Game Regulations. We expect a Club at this level to read and fully understand the Regulations of any competition it enters at the start of a season. They have, or should have, known about the potentiality for such a situation as occurred. Mr. Potts was aware as early as 7th March. Their case on appeal, when examined closely, relates only to the welfare of their players, i.e. not having them injured and to enable them to have the best possible preparation and chance of winning a Cup final. We do not criticise this objective – it is understandable, but the Club appears to have lost sight completely of any objectivity and has closed its mind to the significant adverse effects accommodating them will have on many other stakeholders within the game.
23. We commend the Club on its achievements this season, no doubt through considerable hard work, but they are in no different a situation to many others who have simply sought to get on with their Cup final preparations rather than advance somewhat specious arguments over the definition of words within the Game Regulations to avoid their League responsibilities.
24. The Club have failed by some considerable margin to establish either that NCC was wrong in coming to the decision it came to, or that their position in this appeal is so special to require the significant inconvenience which would be suffered by many.
Decision
25. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The Club forfeits its appeal fee. The Club will play its North 2 (West) fixture against Stockport RFC on 5th April 2008.
Signed: Antony Davies, Chairman
Date: 4th April 2008 |
