ANATOMY OF A STORM WITHIN A STORM
SRU POISED TO FIGHT BACK IF JAPAN CLASH IS CALLED OFF
AS Typhoon Hagibis came on the radar last month and it became apparent that matches at the Rugby World Cup in Japan would be affected, coaches and players alike started reaching for the rulebook. Yesterday, it was Scotland who had that book slammed down on them as World Rugby announced a £70,000 fine for the SRU after finding them guilty of misconduct and bringing the game into disrepute following their actions in Japan. They have also been ordered to apologise for their behaviour. Here, Sportsmail takes a look at how the sorry saga unfolded, with Scotland’s reputation and now bank balance taking as much of a beating as the national team did on the pitch.
October 7-9
DARK CLOUDS GATHER
At first, it seemed like Gregor Townsend’s side would be the beneficiaries of an act of God, with group rivals Ireland’s game with Samoa in Fukuoka under threat from Typhoon Hagibis — dubbed ‘Haggis’ by the Scotland camp. ‘The rules are the rules,’ said head coach Townsend as he prepared his side for their penultimate match against Russia. ‘The Ireland game against Samoa cannot be postponed — it has to be played that day. If it cannot be played that day, then it’s two points for each team.’ Yet the Scots are no strangers to changeable weather and so it proved as the storm quickly altered course. Instead of Ireland’s match on Saturday being in danger of postponement, it was now Scotland’s crucial game against Japan the following day in Yokohama that was at risk. Suddenly, adhering strictly to the rules would mean Scotland — despite having now routed Russia — being on the plane home should the game not go ahead.
October 10
TAKE COVER
World Rugby send shockwaves through the tournament by cancelling England’s match with France — a dead rubber — which was due to take place in Yokohama two days later, on the Saturday. It’s the first time in the 32-year history of the World Cup that a fixture has been called off. Spurred on by the realisation that an early exit is now very much on the cards, a senior SRU source tells
Sportsmail they would be ‘furious’ if the game isn’t played, even if it means being delayed for 24 hours. In another newspaper article, a ‘senior spokesman’ from the
SRU threatens that ‘the Union will have no choice but to take immediate legal action’ and calls the handling of the situation ‘disgracefully poor’ and ‘shambolic’.
October 11
EARLY WARNING
In response to that newspaper article, World Rugby CEO Brett Gosper sends an email followed by a formal warning letter to Dodson. In the warning letter, Gosper referred to the article and said: ‘RWCL believes that the SRU’s comments breach the ToP (Terms of Participation) and Regulation 20. This letter should be taken as a formal warning that any further public statements of this nature and/ or other matters that breach the ToP and/or Regulation 20, will result in RWCL issuing a misconduct charge and referring the matter to be considered by an independent Judicial Panel and seek the imposition of sanctions that are appropriate to such behaviour.’ From this point on, the SRU was on notice that further remarks of the type included in the aforementioned article would result in misconduct charges. Despite that warning, Dodson continues to speak out about the possibility and unfairness of the fixture being cancelled and possible legal action.
THE BREAKDOWN
The SRU chief executive’s comments, to a number of media outlets, were the focus of the panel’s decision to find the SRU guilty of misconduct and bringing the game into disrepute. Dodson said: ‘For World Rugby to just simply state that the game has to be cancelled goes against the whole sporting integrity of the tournament. We had consistent dialogue since the last couple of days around this with senior people at World Rugby but World Rugby seem to be determined to sticking to its plan that the match is either played
on the Sunday which is open to the elements or indeed it is cancelled. To have it cancelled, and to have our ability to progress in the group put at peril, we feel is absolutely unacceptable.’
■ The panel found that ‘if the game was cancelled it would have been in accordance with the ToP. Such a decision would not have offended the sporting integrity of the tournament. To suggest otherwise publicly in this way was wrong. It had the effect of lowering the esteem of the game, World Rugby, RWCL and RWC 2019 in the eyes of the public.’
Dodson said: ‘World Rugby are pointing us back to the Participation Agreement and that this is clearly stated in the Participation Agreement, we’ve had a legal opinion and we have taken a QC opinion. A leading sports QC in London that challenges that and unravels the World Rugby case.’
■ The panel found that ‘we agree with RWCL that Mr
Dodson was threatening that legal action might follow if the match was not played... we are satisfied that the words did bring the sport of Rugby Union, World Rugby, RWC 2019 and the RWCL into disrepute.
Dodson said: ‘We’re not going to let Scotland be the collateral damage for a decision that was taken in haste. And we don’t want to get into some kind of a legal arm wrestle with World Rugby. We don’t want to criticise World Rugby. But we do believe that we are being timed out in this competition, and being timed out is not a comfortable place to be.’
■ The panel found that ‘for Dodson to suggest the SRU was in some way “collateral damage” at a time when widespread physical destruction was expected and life was imperilled was an extraordinary insensitive observation, to put it mildly’.
Dodson said: ‘I think most people feel that if it was one of the economic powerhouse of the game, let’s just say New Zealand, perhaps more thought would be given to a flexible approach.’
■ The panel found that: ‘What Mr Dodson was saying and would be understood to be saying was that if the situation involved for example New Zealand, then a different outcome would result. That is a clear suggestion that RWCL treats Participating Unions differently depending on their economic value. It also suggested that RWCL would breach its own ToP by applying an individually applicable variation if it were economically beneficial to do so.
October 13
GAME ON
On the morning of the match, it is decided it can, after all, go ahead. And, in a remarkable encounter, Japan emerge victorious to book an historic passage into the knockout stages of a World Cup for the first time and the Scots do end up on an early plane home.
November 2
THIS ISN’T OVER
For the Scots and Dodson, however, the World Cup hangover wasn’t about to end. Misconduct charges were forthcoming before Sportsmail revealed earlier this month that the SRU faced a six-figure fine if found guilty. The SRU had previously stated they would seek recourse to appeal, with a spokesman also saying: ‘Scottish Rugby is querying whether the matter is an appropriate one for the bringing of misconduct charges. We look forward to receiving a fair hearing in this matter.’
November 7
THE END GAME
Yesterday, the hammer came down on the SRU. Of the two charges brought by World Rugby, one was upheld by their Disputes Committee, with the SRU fined £70,000, formally reprimanded for its conduct and ordered to issue in writing a meaningful apology to World Rugby and RWCL for its misconduct in terms approved by the committee. In its judgment in finding the SRU guilty, the panel stated:
■ The comments and the conduct were intentional. ■ The conduct was repeated.
■ That repeated conduct came after, and notwithstanding, the Warning Letter, which is a significant aggravating factor.
■ We find that it was part of a campaign wrongly devised and carried out to put pressure or seek to put pressure on RWCL to have the match played.
■ The publicity generated in consequence was considerable.
■ The SRU’s conduct did bring the game, World Rugby, RWCL and RWC 2019 into disrepute and damaged the RWC 2019 competition.
■ Given the factors set out above, the DC concludes that this was egregious behaviour, sitting towards the most serious end of the misconduct spectrum.
■ The SRU continues to deny fault and refused to apologise as part of a compromise offer.
■ The compromise offer from RWCL were that the SRU must apologise for its conduct and make a donation to the Typhoon disaster relief fund in Japan. The SRU reply suggested alternative wording which included a mutual expression of ‘regret’ from both parties, and no apology.
■ They did not find the SRU guilty of a second charge, relating to comments made by their legal Counsel, Nick De Marco QC.