By UKMS
April 15 2015

A summary of the unanimous findings of the RFU appeal panel in Nathan Hughes appeal.      

 

The Panel took time to consider carefully the evidence and submissions. It reminded itself of the high burden imposed by RFU Regulation 19.6.4. It made the following unanimous findings: 

The Player did not kick the ball out of N11’s hands after the try had been scored;  The Player did not place his leg close to N11’s head after the try had been scored;  It was legitimate for the Player to have made the defensive run towards the corner flag;  There was no evidence to support the assertion that the Player should have stopped his run earlier (there was no positive case advanced as to the stage at which this should have occurred);  Both players were travelling at considerable speed and committed to scoring/defending respectively;

It was reasonable for the Player to have anticipated other scenarios other than N11 scoring the try and to have endeavoured to put himself in a position to respond to such scenarios;  The force and nature of the collision was contributed to by the fact of N11 lifting his head up and towards the Player immediately before the point of impact. 

By the point at which it became inevitable that N11 would score the Player was within a single stride of N11 and was still travelling at some speed. 

 
In the view of the Panel up to that point there were other scenarios that could have transpired other than N11 successfully scoring a try. These included N11 being tackled short of the line and/or spilling the ball. In either eventuality the Player would have wanted to be in a position to react to the circumstances as they presented and to have done all he could to prevent a try being scored.  

 
The Panel was satisfied that by reference to the reasons advanced by the Referee at the time and those set out in his Red Card Report, the decision to issue the red card was wrong. The Player had not acted unlawfully after the try had been scored. Indeed the case advanced before the Panel during the appeal did not assert that he had done so. 

 
On the basis of the evidence before the Panel, it was not satisfied to the standard required that the RFU had made out its case on recklessness. On the balance of probabilities and having regard to the evidence of the Player, Mr Young and Dr Oxford, the Panel concluded that it had not been unreasonable for the Player to have taken the run that he had and that the collision that thereafter occurred had been accidental.  

A number of possible eventualities could have arisen other than N11 scoring a try all of which the Player would have had to assess at the time whilst travelling at speed in a dynamic situation. The Panel did not therefore consider that the Player could fairly be judged to have failed to have given any thought to the possibility that there was a risk that he might have committed an act of illegal play such as to have engaged the first limb of the expanded guidance (as argued by Mr Milliken-Smith) set out at paragraph 54 above.

 
Reinforcing its view that the collision had been accidental, the Panel noted the absence of reaction from any Northampton player which it considered to be of significance. 

In the circumstances the appeal was upheld. The Player was accordingly cleared to play again with immediate effect and the Red Card issued against him is removed from his record

 

You can read the full report HERE