Appeal
Printed From: National League Rugby Discussion Forum
Category: League Rugby - www.leaguerugby.co.uk
Forum Name: Regional 1
Forum Description: Discuss the 72 clubs in the fifth level of the English game.
URL: http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=18843
Printed Date: 04 May 2024 at 00:29
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Appeal
Posted By: Thunderpants
Subject: Appeal
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2021 at 22:44
|
Interested on your thoughts on this verdict - https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/19/1928aaaf-4750-45d2-9024-2b99b5893453/TringAppealJudgmentNov21.pdf" rel="nofollow - https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/19/1928aaaf-4750-45d2-9024-2b99b5893453/TringAppealJudgmentNov21.pdf ------------- It really was from the 22.... |
Replies:
Posted By: Robb
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2021 at 23:30
| It's tough but sadly, that's the way the rules are written and thus alas have to be enforced that way. I do feel for Tring but the problem they have is that by the letter of the law, they have no choice but to accept the penalty. |
Posted By: FHLH
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 05:50
|
A fascinating insight into law vs natural justice. No doubt that Tring acted sensibly and responsibly, but paid the price for that. Perhaps what they should have done was to suspend all matches for a period of weeks and seen what the RFU did then. High risk but morally right What would have been the penalty had there been an outbreak following the Match? "Hand, foot, and mouth disease is contagious People with hand, foot, and mouth disease are usually most contagious during the first week that they are sick. People can sometimes spread the virus to others for days or weeks after symptoms go away or if they have no symptoms at all." ------------- "My father told me big men fall just as quick as little ones, if you put a sword through their hearts." |
Posted By: BruceElliott
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 06:08
|
Tring were in a no-win situation. tl;dr - Do the right thing, get punished. 12 - "...Tring RUFC acted responsibly in stopping the spread among their own players and preventing a spread to Dorking RFC players." 14 - "We should deal first with the suggestion that dismissing this appeal would lead to a situation where the health and safety of future players would be put at risk because clubs in the position of Tring RUFC might decide to field players even though they might be infected. Any such action would be contrary to the core values of the game, including the values of integrity and respect. In our judgement any Club which put any player at risk by fielding players who were known to be at real risk of passing on an infection to other players and teams would be very likely to face proceedings under the RFU Regulations and Rules (including Rule 5.12) for penalties far in excess of a 5-point deduction... the response by Tring RUFC to the outbreak of HFM was a proper and reasonable response to the situation." 16 - "In our judgment the League Secretary and the Disciplinary panel below were entitled to consider that the 5-point deduction was properly imposed on Tring RUFC. We consider that Mr Kaminski was right to submit that even if a club acts reasonably and properly (as Tring RUFC did), that does not mean that they have a justifiable reason under Regulation 13.6.11(b) for not fulfilling the fixture." The decision is made and nothing anyone says here will make any difference, but as we're here... I'm not a Dorking or Tring supporter. I understand the frustration from Dorking's perspective. Under the circumstances Tring did the right thing. I don't think there's any benefit to anyone in the points deduction. I really feel for Tring. |
Posted By: SurreyRugby
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 09:11
| Hi. It is unfortunate for Tring. It is noted that Tring played a 3rd team on the Friday evening plus a full programme of junior games on the Sunday. If this disease was so infectious, why did these games take place? I'm a bit confused by Trings abitary actions. |
Posted By: Raider999
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 10:33
Presumably because the outbreak was confined to the first team squad who probably train at different times or separately from the rest of the club. It is also possible that any other club members who could have been affected through contact with the first team squad were withdrawn from junior fixtures? ------------- RAID ON |
SurreyRugby wrote:Posted By: carlos fandango
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 11:25
|
Far from being a Tring supporter but I do have sympathy for them. This does show the difference between justice and law which is often confused. When I read the judgement, it did strike me that it was very confused but that the panel had decided to punish Tring come what may. Then again, I'm no lawyer.
|
Posted By: MikeGC
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 12:18
|
Am I being naive ? Every sympathy for both Clubs but… Surely, 2nd XV players step into the 1st XV, 3rd XV players step into the 2nd XV, etc. until the lowest senior team at the club postpones their fixture. Three 1st XV players unavailable Three 2nd XV players step up into the 1st XV Three 3rd XV players step into the 2nd XV Happened at my club a few weeks ago. Each team got a thorough spanking but we fulfilled our commitments. |
Posted By: Shamrose
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 12:47
That is what it comes down to
|
Posted By: SurreyRugby
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 12:53
| Perfect. That is what I was trying to say |
Posted By: carlos fandango
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 14:27
|
Don't disagree with that sentiment, but can a club say that the disparity between 3rd and 1st XV is so great that there is a question of player safety there too?
PS: My assumption is that 2nd team trains with first so are potentially infectious too.
|
Posted By: Count Ford
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 17:24
| Can anyone confirm if any clubs have had to postpone matches due to Covid and if they have been deducted 5 points? If not it seems a hugely unfair and arbitrary decision against Tring. |
Posted By: dave2dave
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 17:34
|
edited 100 times sometimes best to say nothing.  |
Posted By: Thatbloke
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 17:34
| Plenty postponed due to Covid at all levels - no sanctions imposed |
Posted By: Count Ford
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 18:40
Presumably there are specific coronavirus regulations then...but it seems unbelievably self important to have no points deduction for one contagious disease, but a points deduction for another. Surely a suspended sentence and the forfeit of the game, would have kept the message of the importance of fulfilling fixtures while not unduly punishing the club.
|
Posted By: dropout22
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 18:44
Surely at that level all players train together??
|
Posted By: dropout22
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 18:45
| Looking at Dorking's form anyways, Tring would've at best come away with a LBP - if lucky. |
Posted By: Thunderpants
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 19:21
|
SurreyRugby Hi. It is unfortunate for Tring. It is noted that Tring played a 3rd team on the Friday evening plus a full programme of junior games on the Sunday. If this disease was so infectious, why did these games take place? I'm a bit confused by Trings abitary actions. ------------- It really was from the 22.... |
Posted By: Thunderpants
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 19:29
|
[QUOTE=MikeGC]Am I being naive ? Every sympathy for both Clubs but… Surely, 2nd XV players step into the 1st XV, 3rd XV players step into the 2nd XV, etc. until the lowest senior team at the club postpones their fixture. Not naive at all Mike,your description of 'how it works' is spot on. Tring 2nds and 1's train as one squad , the 3's separately. And with all respect to them, very few would be able to step up to the 2's ,let alone the 1's. ------------- It really was from the 22.... |
Posted By: SurreyRugby
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 20:35
|
Hi Thunderpants. You probably know more about how Tring are structured. I don't know any club at this level with different training for the seniors. Do they also use seperate changing rooms and bar areas too? If this disease is so contagious then the whole tring clubhouse would have to be closed too. |
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 20:44
|
Contagious, yes, but not the most serious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand,_foot,_and_mouth_disease" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand,_foot,_and_mouth_disease ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: Robb
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2021 at 23:59
The covid regulation specifically says that matches only get postponed.
|
Posted By: Count Ford
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2021 at 00:18
|
So Trings available actions were: a) play the game, but put another club at risk and face potentially a more serious punishment. b) don't play the game and be deducted 5 points. This seems a punishment from an organisation that does not have the good of the game at its heart. I know nothing about Tring or have any affiliation to them but quite frankly I'd be appalled if a team in the L8 league I follow was hit with a similar punishment. And people wonder why Lancashire decided they'd had enough and would try things their own way |
Posted By: @boatyjames
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2021 at 06:56
| I think it is harsh on Tring but also harsh on all other clubs in the league. Fact is Tring away is never an easy fixture and one club in the promotion race has been given 5 points instead of playing there! |
Posted By: FEZ ANT PLUCKER
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2021 at 11:49
|
The rules are the rules and it appears have been interpreted to the letter. It does not mean they are right, fair and reasonable, nor does it mean they cannot be changed or adjusted at some time in the future, by reasonable intelligent thinking rule makers. There seems to be a disparity between circumstances and rules surrounding serious contagious diseases, ie Covid and HFM. There is no doubt that Covid is the worse disease to have affected us all since the plague, however HFM should not be minimalised or downgraded in this context, when welfare of players, care and consideration for others, is a major factor in decisions made at the time. I am a Dorking supporter and I make this controversial view on the matter which is my opinion only. Given all the circumstances and having read the 'Appeal' document I think Tring have been treated harshly. It was an Away fixture that Tring failed to fulfil for all the reasons stated and the 5pt deduction IMO is right and justified. Its the other bit I find to be excessive, ie losing their home/return fixture, seemingly as an extra layer of punishment. This facet of the rule seems to me (in a reasonable context) to be excessive punishment, over a decision made by Tring with apparently no malice or aforethought involved. As a final note I should mention that Tring have been our 'friends' for many years and I hope that no bitterness or bad feelings emerge as a result of this ruling when we play them in December at the Big Field. I am also conscious that Tring have lost their Christmas home fixture in this process, which would have been for them a financial boost for the club. I do hope that future consideration and careful thought is given by the powers that be to this rule should the same circumstances ever happen again. ------------- Fezantplucker |
Posted By: Lord_Kitchener
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2021 at 13:50
|
Whilst rules are rules, none cater for the deduction of a 5 point penalty. This is at the discretion of the League Secretary. His decision was based on the form of consistency and setting an example based on historic precedent. Sadly we are not in a "normal" season. Based on the specific situation, a walkover win to the oppo and loss of home advantage for the return were sufficient. a 5 point penalty suspended for 2 years would have also tied in to this.
It's the same with CS Stags. What did the 5 point penalty achieve? |
Posted By: dave2dave
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2021 at 16:03
|
using a sledge hammer to crack a walnut here. As Count Ford said So Trings available actions were:a) play the game, but put another club at risk and face potentially a more serious punishment. b) don't play the game and be deducted 5 points. correct. Please advsie for next time the correct answer what was the c) your club would have done to be fair to all parties involved
|
Posted By: Thunderbird
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2021 at 16:19
|
Having followed this thread from the start. All so having dealt with disciplinary matters at CB and National league level. I would always contact the CB secretary or National league secretary for guidance before making any meaningful decision. Basically put the ball in their court. I have actually had HFM and would not wish it on anyone. All the hard skin came off my hands and feet, to swallow anything was like swallowing acid. I am also old enough to remember when scrum pox was rife and was also very contagious, referees would stop players playing if it was spotted.
|
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2021 at 17:11
|
The original decision may well be harsh. However, given there is no relegation this season, the five point penalty is entirely nominal. So what was the upside to the appeal? ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: Robb
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2021 at 16:05
It was early in the season and with more promotion spots up for grabs, reasonable to take consideration of the need for points.
|
Posted By: dave2dave
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2021 at 18:10
|
see intelligence on westcliff vs Guernsey On the last game. I note that Westcliff borrowed 4 players for Guernsey last week to play the game. Can somebody shed some light on this and tell me how does that work ? |
Posted By: Raider999
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2021 at 18:55
Saw that, not sure if they borrowed them from Guernsey or other clubs to play at Guernsey. Report on Westcliff website just said 4 players made their debut - no other information. I would imagine Westcliff's insurance would have covered any problems of that nature. ------------- RAID ON |