Following the citings of the Argentinian players Roberto Grau and Mauricio Reggiardo for alleged incidents in the match between Argentina and Ireland at Adelaide on Sunday 26 October, the RWC Independent Judicial Officer Bruce Squire QC of New Zealand upheld the citings in both cases.
At a hearing in Sydney today he suspended Grau for nine weeks up to and including 31 December having found him guilty of raking his hand over the face of an opposition player.
Reggiardo has been suspended for six weeks up to and including the 10 December. The Judicial Officer concluded that, in this instance, the players use of the hands to the opponent's face was reckless rather than deliberate but carried a significant and unacceptable risk of injury.
The citing Commissioner was Douglas Hunter of Scotland and what follows is the full judgments of the Argentinian players Roberto Grau and Mauricio Reggiardo.
The Mauricio Reggiardo verdict
Judicial Officer : Mr Bruce Squire QC
Present
Mr Mauricio Reggiardo
Dr Michael Lawless
Mr Douglas Hunter: Citing Commissioner
Mr Darren Bailey: Designated Disciplinary Officer
Mr Hugh FitzSimons:- Assistant Legal Advisor
Mr Adrian Steer :Australian Rugby Union Representative
Mr S C Finnane: Counsel for Mr Reggiardo
Mr R C Byrnes: Solicitor for Mr Reggiardo
Mr E Perasso: Manager of the Argentine Team
Mr Frederico Fleitas: Secretary of the Argentine Rugby Union
Mr Keith Yorston: Translator
Date of Hearing: 29 October 2003
Decision
This Hearing has been convened under the Rugby World Cup 2003 Tournament Disciplinary Programme to consider the citing of Mauricio Reggiardo (Reggiardo) arising from an incident which occurred in the match played between Argentina and Ireland at Adelaide on 26 October 2003.
Reggiardo was cited by the Citing Commissioner for the match for dangerous play, namely attacking the eyes of an opposition player contrary to Law 10.4(k) of the Laws of the Game. The incident was not seen by the Referee or either of the Touch Judges for the Game.
The incident from which the citing arises occurred at about 15 minutes into the second half of the match. A scrum had been set near the Argentina 22 metre line but broke up with a brief altercation between Reggiardo and his opposition prop for Ireland Corrigan.
The scrum was reset and the football fed into it. At this point, Reggiardo was observed to remove his right hand from where it had previously been bound on his Irish opponent and place it inside the left arm of the Irish player and upwards in the vicinity of his face.
The Irish player was then seen to become unbound in the scrum and fall to the ground clutching at his left eye.
The Referee then awarded a penalty to Argentina but the Irish player remained on the ground and had his injured eye attended to by the Irish team doctor. Shortly after he retired from the field of play and was replaced by another player.
At the hearing I required the Irish player (Corrigan) and the Irish team doctor, Dr O'Driscoll to give evidence before me. This was done by way of video link up from Melbourne where the Irish team are presently staying in preparation for their next match in the tournament.
Corrigan gave evidence that at the scrummage from which the citing arises he felt Reggiardo release his bind on him and then felt fingers go into his left eye followed by a ripping sensation consistent with what is commonly called an eye gouge.
He said that he immediately experienced severe pain which caused him to cry out and place his left hand over his injured eye as he fell to the ground.
He said that when he was examined by Dr O'Driscoll on the field of play the contact lens which he was wearing in his left eye was found to be damaged and blood was coming from the eye.
Under questioning from Counsel for Reggiardo, Corrigan said he was sure the injury to his eye was caused by fingers being inserted into it and rejected a suggestion made to him the painful sensation he experienced in his eye was the result of the damaged contact lens being forced against or across his eye by contact with other players in the scrum.
He said that he had no sensation or recollection of being grabbed by the jersey after Reggiardo had initially released his bind on him at the time of or immediately before experiencing the tearing sensation to his left eye.
Dr O'Driscoll gave evidence that when he attended Corrigan on the field of play, Corrigan said to him his eye had been gouged and that on examination of the eye he found the contact lens to be folded over and protruding from it.
He said he found a watery blood stained discharge coming from the eye and a corneal abrasion of some 3 to 4 millimetres in length on the medial aspect of the eye.
Under questioning by Counsel Dr O'Driscoll expressed the view that the injury he found was consistent with an injury inflicted by a fingernail or something of an equivalently sharp nature. He accepted that while the folded contact lens may have caused some discomfort for Corrigan he did not think it consistent with the amount of pain he found the Player to be in when he examined him and was confident that it was not the folded contact lens that had caused the injury to Corrigan's eye.
He acknowledged that the injury of the kind sustained by Corrigan would have been so painful as to have caused an instant reaction on his part.
Prior to the evidence of Corrigan and Dr O'Driscoll I had viewed video tapes of the incident taken from a variety of angles.
The video tapes confirmed the Citing Commissioner's description of the incident as set out in his Citing Complaint as they confirmed the evidence Reggiardo then gave in relation to how he released his binding on the Irish player and put his right arm inside the left arm of the Irish player to take hold of the Irish player, as he claimed, in order to prevent the Irish player from pushing in toward his hooker in an endeavour to wheel the scrum.
Reggiardo's evidence was that this was a technique he had adopted when opposing props endeavour to wheel the scrum in the fashion he suggested was occurring on this occasion and in support of that contention I was shown a video tape from the match played between Argentina and Namibia earlier in the Rugby World Cup Tournament in which it was shown that Reggiardo had adopted the same technique at a scrum in that game. Reggiardo denied he eye gouged Corrigan.
He claimed that he never heard Corrigan cry out in pain and contended that all he had done was to use the technique just described to grab hold of Corrigan's jersey at about the collar area to prevent him from endeavouring to wheel the scrum.
He acknowledged that the point at which he endeavoured to grab hold of Corrigan's jersey was in close proximity to Corrigan's face but did not accept that in so doing he may have caused the injury to Corrigan's eye.
He said he did not know how the injury to Corrigan's eye happened. Evidence was also given by Mr Geoff Threlfo. Mr Threlfo is the Liaison Officer with the Argentinian team and told me that he had attended team trainings during the period he has acted as Liaison Officer.
He said that he was an experienced former front row forward himself who had played a number of first grade games in the Sydney Club Competition and still plays Rugby at a social level.
He said that he had observed the Argentinian forwards at training employing the same technique Reggiardo said he used on this occasion to prevent opposing forward packs wheeling scrums and that he had observed this technique being used in the Namibian game on a couple of occasions including that shown in the video tape. He said he had also observed other well known prop forwards used the same technique.
He acknowledged that the technique would have been of no value and no effect if the person employing it did not take hold of the jersey of the opposing player because he would get no leverage. He said that it would be readily apparent to an opposing player if his jersey had not been grabbed for that purpose in the employment of that particular technique.
At the conclusion of the evidence, I invited Counsel for Reggiardo to put to Dr Lawless any medical issues he wanted to raise arising out of the evidence that had been called. Counsel indicated that he had no questions for Dr Lawless and the evidence was then completed.
In his submissions to me on the issue of whether or not the Citing Complaint was made out Counsel pointed to the fact Corrigan had been wrong about how Reggiardo had adjusting his binding to effect the technique previously described and pointed to the fact that the video tape of the incident did not support Corrigan's evidence that once Reggiardo had taken hold of him with the adjusted technique the injury to his eye was inflicted and he reacted as he did to the resultant pain.
He submitted that the greater likelihood was that the injury to Corrigan's eye and the subsequent pain he experienced was the result of the displaced contact lens being pushed up against and across the eye creating the impression Corrigan had that his eye was being gouged.
He also pointed to the position of the Irish break away who was attached to the scrum immediately alongside Corrigan and who from the video tape did not react to any perceived injury sustained by Corrigan and submitted that on the whole of the evidence it had not been proved that Corrigan's injuries were the result of any action on Reggiardo's part, either deliberate or of a reckless nature.
Counsel submitted that the charge as formulated in the Citing Complaint involved an allegation of a deliberate attack on the Irish player's eyes and that unless I was satisfied that charge was proved I should find the Complaint not made out rather than address the question of whether the injury to the Irish player's eyes may have been the result of culpable conduct on Reggiardo's part short of a deliberate attack on the Irish player's eyes.
In that regard I heard submissions from Mr Bailey as to the powers I had within the Tournament Disciplinary Programme Rules which I do not need to detail here.
Having heard all the evidence put before me and having viewed the video tapes of the incidents closely I was satisfied there was contact between Reggiardo's fingers and Corrigan's left eye at the scrummage from which the Citing Complaint originated.
In that regard I was particularly influenced by the fact that Dr O'Driscoll's evidence was that the nature of the injuries he saw was consistent with having been inflicted by a finger nail and that the video tapes showed that after having adjusted his binding in the fashion already described Reggiardo's hand was placed in a position in at least close proximity to the face of the Irish player who sustained the injury.
Having reached that conclusion, but applying the standard of proof prescribed by Rule 8.4 of the Tournament Disciplinary Programme Rules, but otherwise commensurate with the seriousness of such an allegation, I was not satisfied that the contact had been shown to have been deliberately made.
I was, however, satisfied that in all the circumstances it arose from a reckless use of the hand by Reggiardo in using the technique he described to grab or take hold of the Irish player at the scrum at a point which was in close proximity to his face and which carried with it an attendant and obviously unacceptable risk of injury. In that sense I found the Citing Complaint to have been proved.
Penalty
A number of submissions were made to me on the issue of penalty. It is not necessary for me to record in detail here everything said in that regard. My attention was drawn by Counsel to Reggiardo's career as an international player and the fact he had no previous record of suspensions or appearances before judicial bodies for foul play.
I was told that with the Argentinian team's participation in the Rugby World Cup Tournament being completed that Reggiardo would return to France to continue playing club rugby in that country.
There was a suggestion made to me that any suspension imposed on him would have financial consequences under the contractual arrangements he had with the club with whom he plays in France but I reminded Counsel that judicial bodies throughout the Rugby world had consistently taken the position that the financial consequences arising from contractual arrangements players had with clubs or rugby unions were not matters taken into account in imposing penalties for foul play.
In assessing the appropriate penalty I started from the point that the Citing Complaint was found to have been proved on the basis that the player's actions showed a reckless use of the hand with an unacceptable risk of injury to the Irish player which unfortunately resulted. Conversely it seems that with treatment, no permanent injury is likely to have been inflicted.
I have taken account of the players good record over many years as a player of international standing and given that record appropriate weight in fixing the penalty to be imposed as I have the fact that the player will no longer be involved in the Rugby World Cup Tournament but will be returning to France to play in club matches in that country.
Those matters notwithstanding, there is, in my view, a serious quality to the players actions involving a risk of serious injury which needs to be marked by the imposition of an appropriately condign penalty.
Applying the Rules I am required to by the Tournament Disciplinary Programme, I am obliged to start consideration of the appropriate penalty at the prescribed tariff or "entry point" as it is called, of 24 months suspension prescribed in Appendix 8 of the Programme. From that I discounted an appropriate period for the nature of infraction and the other mitigating factors I have referred to.
I have also had regard to the need to impose, within the constraints imposed by the Rules which govern my approach to the assessment of penalty, penalties which are broadly comparable with penalties imposes in other cases of similar culpability.
Approaching the matter in that way and giving appropriate weight to all of the matters I have referred to I decided to impose a period of suspension for six weeks.
In the result Reggiardo was suspended from all Rugby from the 29th of October 2003 for a period up to and including 10 December 2003.
The player is reminded of the right of appeal available to him under the Tournament Disciplinary Programme Rules.
Dated at Sydney this 30th day of October 2003.
Full decision in relation to Roberto Grau
Judicial Officer: Mr Bruce Squire QC
Present
Mr Roberto Grau
Mr S C Finnane: Counsel for Mr Grau
Mr R C Byrnes : Solicitor for Mr Grau
Mr E Perasso : Manager of the Argentine Team
Mr Frederico Fleitas : Secretary of the Argentine Rugby Union
Mr Douglas Hunter : Citing Commissioner
Mr Darren Bailey : Designated Disciplinary Officer
Mr Hugh FitzSimons : Assistant Legal Advisor
Mr Adrian Steer: Representative of the Australian Rugby Union
Date of Hearing: 29 October 2003
Decision
This case involves a further citing by the Citing Commissioner for dangerous play, involving attacking the eyes of an opposition player arising from an incident which occurred in the match played between Argentina and Ireland at Adelaide on 26 October 2003. The incident is described by the Citing Commissioner in his citing complaint in the following way:
"In the second half of the game with elapsed time of 59.36, Ireland are attacking following a tackle by Argentina 14 on Ireland 13, with both players going to ground. A ruck is formed with players joining from both sides. Ireland No.2, Wood, joins this but falls to the ground, at which stage Argentina No.1, Grau, rubs his left hand over the eyes of Wood.
The Referee awards a penalty to Ireland for a technical offence by an Argentine player. As the players rise from the ruck, Wood is seen on the video to be holding his eyes and he cries out in pain 'Oh Ref'.
The Citing Commissioner has alleged that the conduct of the Argentinian player cited, Grau, was in breach of Law 10.4(k) of the Laws of the Game. The incident was not seen by either the Referee or the Touch Judges for the game, although the Referee in a report put before me, has confirmed that the Irish player Wood mentioned to him in the course of the game that he had been eye gouged.
At the hearing I viewed video tapes of the incident and I heard evidence from the Irish player, Wood and Grau about what occurred. Wood said in evidence that at the ruck, as the Referee blew his whistle for an infringement, he was pulled over onto his back and a hand was drawn across his face making contact with his eye. He said he immediately complained to the Referee, but did not suffer any injury and did not require any medical attention from the Irish team medical staff.
Under questioning by Counsel for Grau, Wood denied that he had complained to the Referee about his eye being gouged simply in order to "milk" a penalty, as it was put to him. He acknowledged that he had driven into the ruck using his right arm to drive an opposition player off the ruck, but denied this was an attempt by him to strike or punch the opposition player. The video tape I viewed showed that Woods' use of his arm in this way did strike an Argentinian player at the ruck, and whether or not he intended it to be so, I am satisfied his actions could have been perceived to have been a deliberate blow.
As indicated, Wood acknowledged he did not suffer injury of any significance from having Grau's hand drawn across his face, describing it in answer to a question from Counsel, as a "pretty mild" offence, but subsequently explaining that as being due to the fact he did not suffer any injury from it.
In his evidence, Grau said that he had seen Wood enter the ruck and hit one of his fellow players with his head and then punch the same player. He said this caused him to become "cross" with Wood and he reacted by putting his hand on Wood's head and pushing him to the ground. On further questioning he acknowledged that his hand had also moved across the Irish player's face in the fashion which was obvious from the video tapes shown of the incident.
He said he did not cause any injury to Wood's eyes and did not know why Wood had complained to the Referee about eye gouging. He ventured the suggestion previously advanced by his Counsel that Wood was simply endeavouring to "milk" a penalty from the Referee, which in any event had been awarded to the Irish team immediately before Grau drew his hand across Wood's face.
At the conclusion of Grau's evidence, submissions were made to me by his Counsel. On the basis of the evidence I had before me I was not satisfied this was the case in which there had been a deliberate attack on the Irish player's eyes, as was at least implicitly alleged by the Citing Commissioner in his Citing Complaint, and I indicated to Counsel that I was considering amending the Citing Complaint under Rule 16.10 of the Tournament Disciplinary Programme so as to make it conformable with the evidence before me. I invited Grau's Counsel to make submissions to me as to whether my amendment of the Citing Complaint in the manner proposed would result in any injustice to the player.
Counsel had no submissions to make to me in that regard and there being no submission that any injustice would result to the player cited and having regard to the evidence I had before me, I amended the Citing Complaint under Rule 16.10 of the Tournament Disciplinary Programme by deleting the words "attacking the eyes" and substituting in their place the words "raking his hand across the face of an opposition player".
I invited Counsel to make any further submissions he wished in relation to the issue of whether the amended charge had been proven. He declined to make any further submissions, and after having reviewed the evidence again in terms of the amended complaint and having regard to the submissions previously made to me by Counsel, I was satisfied to the extent required, bearing in mind the nature of the allegation made, that the Citing Complaint was proved.
In my view, the evidence of what occurred as shown on the video tapes demonstrated clearly that Grau had drawn his hand across Wood's face in a raking motion after the Referee had blown his whistle for an infringement at the ruck and as Wood was falling backwards into other players lying on the ground. I was satisfied that Grau had raked his hand across the face of the Irish player deliberately because he had become incensed or "cross" as he put it in evidence, at Wood for what he perceived Wood had done to one of his fellow players as he arrived at the ruck.
Although Grau himself may have regarded Woods' actions as provocative and justifying the response he made, the Tournament Disciplinary Programme Rules clearly provide that perceived provocative conduct provides no defence to breaches of the Laws relating to foul play and in the sense and for the reasons indicated, I found the Citing Complaint proved.
Penalty
On the issue of penalty I was informed by Counsel that Grau had a long career as an Argentine national player and the fact that apart from two relatively minor transgressions some years ago, he had effectively a blameless record. It was submitted that his transgression in this case was to a degree provoked by Wood's actions at the ruck, and while it was acknowledged that that was no defence to the breach of the Laws concerning foul play, it was nonetheless a matter I could take account of in fixing penalty. I was reminded that Wood had sustained no injury as a result of Graus' actions and had himself described the incident as of a "pretty mild" nature.
Despite the fact that the Irish player Wood sustained no injury of any significance which I took into account to Graus' credit, I nonetheless regarded this as a quite serious act of foul play. The drawing of a hand across an opposition player's face in the fashion Grau effected that action in this case, carried an obvious risk of severe injury to the player's face and eyes and despite the fact Grau may have been provoked by his perception of what Wood had done when he arrived at the ruck, foul play of this kind cannot be countenanced.
Grau had a record of previous suspensions of foul play, albeit some time ago, and not of a particularly serious nature as incidents of foul play go, but that record of course meant that he was unable to call on a good record as a mitigating factor in this case justifying a reduction in penalty from what might otherwise have been warranted by his actions.
Appendix 8 to the Tournament Disciplinary Programme which provides for the penalties and tariffs to be applied to the various acts of foul play set out in that Appendix does not provide for the specific kind of offence of which Grau has been found guilty in this case. I am nonetheless guided by the penalties and tariffs there provided for offences of broadly comparable culpability in fixing the appropriate penalty to be imposed in this instance. Having regard to those matters and the other matters that I have referred to by way of mitigation and otherwise, I have concluded that a period of suspension for 9 weeks is to be imposed. In the result Grau will be suspended from all Rugby from 29 October 2003 up to and including 31 December 2003.
In accordance with the Tournament Disciplinary Programme Rules, I remind the player of the rights of appeal available to him against this decision.
Dated at Sydney this 30th day of October, 2003
Bruce Squire QC, Judicial Officer