London Welsh could face points penalty ...buy shares in their law firm now!

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/21595254

Apparently they have fielded an ineligible player in several Jeff games.
The prior cases saw Tigers and Sale docked one point for fielding a player in one game....this could have serious consequences for LWs relegation battle.

Expect their legal team to be all over this if it does decide their fate at the end of the season. Oh dear oh dear.

Thanks LT, grey is right and a great summary of the precedents.

Well, if found to be guilty of some missdirection then I wouldnt expect the RFU to be lenient.......especially after the Exiles legal team made them look silly after their promotion dispute.

The fact that Exiles have come forward with this suggests to me that perhaps it is an error and not deliberate..... however we will wait and see.

RFU will have to tread very carefully though......very interesting times aichw.

The cynical side of me is saying they new it would come to light sooner than later and bringing it to the RFU's attention was the only way of trying to reduce the damage. Even if it proves to be 'an error' it won't get them of the hook completely. 'I didn't mean to break the law' doesn't alter the fact you did and if that were an acceptable defense in this instance can you risk letting future 'errors' go unpunished. I would suggest you can't. There has to be some sanction even if small.

The bottom of the table is so tight that any points deduction would likely have a fairly dramatic effect.
Meanwhile, looking at the run in fixtures a lot of pundits were talking about Exiles still being the likely candidates for the drop.....even before all this was published.

Having in the first place brought it to the RFU's attention that they had incorrectly registered Keats as English, London Welsh are now seeking clemency on that basis that it turns out he might be English eligible.

http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership-2012-13/rugby/story/178092.html

I cant see that being a legit excuse when another team where sanctioned for playing a dual nationality player as non-foriegn when he'd been registered under his "foriegn" nationality
The precedent there was not that they broke the rules on foriegn players through anything other than a technicality, but that they had made an administrative error in the paperwork. Look at the Tigers case too, there it wasnt even them that hadnt done the paperwork but another club...they were held liable for not checking.

The RFU stance is extremely harsh on this and has been for a number fo years. The rules have been communicated clearly including a number of reminders on how seriously they take this (due to the poor state of player registrations across the game and supposedly professional clubs not taking them seriously)

Right or wrong the precedent is there for a deduction IMO. Id feel the most equitable way to deal with it though would be to treat it as a single incident and go with a one or two point deduction plus a nominal fine. Hopefully the full ramifications will be resolved, inlcuding appeals from any affected parties, before the season ends and we dont end up with a similar mess to last year.

Urgh! I have no problem with the London Welsh players who have shown great commitment to the club's cause, but the club's top level management are truly wormlike in their conduct.

The players deserve to stay in the top English league, the club doesn't. Increasingly bringing shame on the spirit in which the great Welsh players who were once there played.

Until all the facts are known, I think people are being too harsh on the club. They are perfectly entitled to enter a defence after all.

Their defence looks a little flawed to me, but then it is 20+ years since I last studied law.

Very few facts appear to have come to light short of these:

1. Tyson Keats was registered with LW (apprently) an an English player. The appropriate form is http://www.rfu.com/managingrugby/~/media/7de9a8cd0ca64eddba8609a49b420f2d.ashx which requires the player's signature ('... I certify that all the information is correct etc. '). So you'd prima facie assume that Keats must have been aware of some anomaly in the declaration. That tends to suggest that LW's opinion that Keats is innocent of any code violation is wide of the mark. The RFU rules committee must assess if this is a false declaration.

2. Mike Scott. From LW's own statement http://www.london-welsh.co.uk/index.php?mod=news_view&id=1555 , 'The club’s former Rugby Manager Mike Scott is the subject of a separate RFU Disciplinary Hearing relating to the registration of the same player and has been charged under RFU Rule 5.12 for ’conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Union or the Game’.

Regulation 5.12 appears to be a bit of a catch-all rule which the RFU can apply liberally for charging bogeymen. Indeed a couple of years ago it was the rule applied in Berkswell & Balsall and Old Coventrians for a mass brawl http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/judgements/judgments2010-2011/judgmentsregion/~/media/files/2009/discipline/2010-2011/judgments/berkswellbalsalloldcoventriansjudgmentapr11.ashx .

Mike Scott (again from LW) 'The club’s former Rugby Manager' was an official of the club at the time. But he seems to have disappeared from any reference on tinterweb (in an RU sense).

But the fact remains that a false declaration was made by the club and notwithstanding how the truth came to light, the club is guilty of a serious misdemeanour and should be punished accordingly.

Of course, had LW not been so quick to threaten to unleash their legal beagles on the RFU/PRL nine months ago, I suspect that they may have received a more charitable hearing than I'd give 'em.

No news yet?

Hearing is on now...

Hearing is still going? Running late......

Its an evening hearing

Pass the port

Thing is some of the RFU's might be missing their dinners for this as incredible as that may seem.I hope they have a good supply of sweets and biscuits on hand

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Thing is some of the RFU's might be missing their dinners for this as incredible as that may seem.I hope they have a good supply of sweets and biscuits on hand

Biscuits

the decision has been deferred by the way.

Was tomorrows menu too good to miss then?

Hobnobs tomorrow. No-one wants to miss that.

A little late night discussion with the lawyers, methinks?

doctor_grey wrote:A little late night discussion with the lawyers, methinks?

Night in the Waldorf, breakfast and a tea and biscuits at the press conference followed by a leisurely stroll back to the office via lunch?

The old farts are so constipated (if that's not a physiological oxymoron).

The decision appears to be quite simple. A New Zealander signs his registration form for LW. The application contains factual errors.

The matter about whether or not the player has an English grannie is a marginal matter of EQPs allowed.

Why does it require extended deliberation to decide if this registration is valid or not? Surely a simple, straightforward, authoritative decision clarifies the situation for all parties involved (Sale, Irish, Worcester etc. included).

Matters regarding Mike Scott and his actions on behalf LW are deferred in any case to a separate tribunal.

That's one of the things I find puzzling ... If Mr Scott was naughty whilst employed by LW surely they are still culpable and the whole thing should be dealt with at the same time?

I am sure the PRL are trying to make sure they have all their legal ducks in a row. The worst thing is another long, drawn out wrangle which disrupts other clubs and the end of this season. Most likely they are checking to see if points deductions and the potential for relegation can survive a legal assault.

You would think they'd be pretty safe with a points deduction due to previous precedents ... if that results in relegation shouldn't come into it. But you're probably right they may be nervous given LW's previous.

I do think it strange still that they are dealing with the cases separately - for example if they find Scott bang to rights later on how can LW not be held responsible when he was part of their organisation? Couldn't that later on result in any misdemeanours like this being blamed on a rogue individual?

Not sure, Heaf. They must have very good reasons for doing it this way. Dealing with a situation which could result in relegation, I am sure they are being very careful. I am sure it will be clear when the judgement is handed down.

Yep - will be interesting to see what finally comes out.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

MrsP wrote:And, what is ECC?

European Coal Community?

English Club Championships. See http://www.rfu.com/managingrugby/competitionsandtournaments/englishclubschampionships.

'The organisation of the 100-plus leagues is delegated by the RFU to various Organising Committees, but all leagues follow the dates set out on the RFU structured season. The competitions are governed by the Game Regulations that are amended and approved by the RFU Council. Matches run from the end of August until May each season with promotion and relegation subsequent to the results.'

I never knew what ECC was but I'm pretty sure that it's not As's suggestion - that was the Eu Coal and Steel Community (the forerunner of the now EU).

doctor_grey wrote: I am sure it will be clear when the judgement is handed down.

Well, that would be a first wouldn't it?

Sarcasm apart, no-one wants a season's outcome being decided in court but I can't see any reason why it should be difficult to reach a judgement on the accuracy of the paperwork, it either is or it isn't. If the innaccuracies make the difference between the player being allowed to play or not then it should then be down to a decision about the level of sanction. The identity of the member of the offending organisation responsible is irrelevant so agree that action in that regard is a seperate matter. LW is treated as an entity, it's individual officer's actions on behalf of the club being the actions of the club as an entity. But lawyers are by nature a slippery bunch and will argue black is white if that's what suits the client.

Could be this be the next "Bloodgate" if Mike Scott was to claim as part of his defence that the club were aware of what was going on and/or put pressure on him into doing something wrong?
Is this why the RFU are dealing with both issues seperately to ensure that the "ducks are in a row" before the hearing regarding an indiviual person so that we don't have the can of worms that was opened before.

greytiger wrote:I never knew what ECC was but I'm pretty sure that it's not As's suggestion - that was the Eu Coal and Steel Community (the forerunner of the now EU).

You mean the European Community which the UK were spitefully prevented from joining?

Apologies for a small political comment.

aitchw wrote:If the innaccuracies make the difference between the player being allowed to play or not then it should then be down to a decision about the level of sanction.

That is where the issue lies. LW say that yes the form was filled incorrectly - but the appearance of a British Granny means that if they had filled it in correctly he would be eligible to play as a non-foreign player.

However a similar situation occurred with Exeter. They had too many foreign players in their 23 man squad, but one of them was actually eligible to play as a non-foreign player if they had filled the form in correctly.

So while there is precedent there does not seem to be (at the higher levels any way) an exact precedent.

doctor_grey wrote:

greytiger wrote:I never knew what ECC was but I'm pretty sure that it's not As's suggestion - that was the Eu Coal and Steel Community (the forerunner of the now EU).

You mean the European Community which the UK were spitefully prevented from joining?

Apologies for a small political comment.

No. I mean the 'forerunner of the [what is] now EU.' Doc. But let's not go into that else I'd have to square my socialist/anti-monarchist/atheist/aniti-militarist/charity-sceptic views with my Stalinist rugby ones.

Is this why the RFU are dealing with both issues seperately to ensure that the "ducks are in a row" before the hearing regarding an indiviual person so that we don't have the can of worms that was opened before.

In my view the registration issue is a 'magistrates court' issue.
The Scott issue is most definitely a 'Crown Court' one. It's no accident that corporate bodies have no distinction in law in these matters from individuals.

A person legally acting on behalf of a company, binds the company. Presumably that is the reason why he has been expunged from LW history.
Scott was 'rugby manager'. Does that mean that he was a clerk or a manager? Or equivalently a TV repairman being designated as a TV Engineer?

Thanks LT, that does complicate things. So, to the letter of the law he was inelligible as his documents were innacurate but were those innacuracies intended to make him appear elligible before the emergence of his British granny? Cynical me is saying they only brought this to the attention of the RFU when they found out that he was elligible anyway because of the Granny and could maybe argue a different case in respect of the false entries in the paperwork.

"Club officials have stressed that Keats was in no way to blame for the problem that threatens to wreck their season." ( http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/club-rugby/london-welsh-left-dangling-over-tyson-keats-sanction-8521765.html )

Hmm. Have you seen the player registration form LW? http://www.rfu.com/managingrugby/~/media/7de9a8cd0ca64eddba8609a49b420f2d.ashx

My belief is that millions of people have been given life sentences and more for innocent innocent and falsified declarations.

Maybe the registration for a lifestyle-changing squiggle should be taken more seriously.

I wish to neither condemn no condone Welsh, Scott nor Keats but this I think is a simple issue:
Keats signed a simple registration form - much simpler than say an insurance declaration.

The small print underpinning the signature however is potentially much more significant.

Can't get the form to display in my browser, sadly.

There is a distinction between the IRB national eligibilty and the RFU registration.

In Exeter's case, Nemani Nadolo had not only been born in Fiji of Fijian parents, but he had been fully capped for Fiji. Hence he is only eligible to play for Fiji, not Australia (where he grew up) in the eyes of the Rugby Union world. Fijians are non-foreign in Kolpak terms.

However, he was registered on his Australian passport (there's some doubt whether he actually had a Fijian one) and hence in the eyes of EU, UK immigration, Kolpak and RFU registration, he was Australian and therefore a foreigner.

It's a bit of a nonsense, but them's the rules. It's possible that LW have succeeded in blurring the distinction, though.

Yesterday's Guardian article makes interesting reading:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/mar/04/london-welsh-tyson-keats-points-deduction

Summary:

• Keats joined the Exiles from disbanded Aironi in August, around the time Mike Scott started work as the club's rugby manager.

• Scott left the club unannounced some time in December. On 7 December, after a defeat in Grenoble, the flanker Mike Denbee posted on Twitter: "Anyone seen Mike Scott? Supposed to be in Grenoble with London Welsh but never turned up. No contact since."

• Keats, who has made 14 Premiership appearances for the club, did not play for the Exiles for more than a month after the 1 December victory over London Irish.

• Keats missed the league matches against Worcester and Wasps, as well as the Amlin Challenge Cup back-to-back encounters with Grenoble. His name was also not included on an injury update put out by the club on 13 December. His next appearance was on 6 January against Harlequins and only his Premiership matches before that date are relevant to the hearing.

• London Welsh drew the matter to the Rugby Football Union's attention last month after an internal investigation.

• Keats was reportedly registered as English but he was in the country on an ancestry visa as one of his grandparents was born in the UK. London Welsh will argue that the two amounted to the same thing.

will we get a decision today or will they run out of biscuits again?

Delayed again:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9913920/London-Welsh-forced-to-wait-again-for-verdict-over-Tyson-Keats-ineligibility.html

• The delay in reaching a verdict suggests that the sanction could be significant but that the full legal implications need to be considered as London Welsh have a right to appeal against any punishment.

Decision expected in the next half hour apparently.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Decision expected in the next half hour apparently.

Just in time to get to dinner. These are real pro's

5pts and £15k

5pts suspended also

ouch.

Sale are safe then

They're still only 2pts behind.

Their real issue is they're starting to hit some poor form at the wrong time as Sale seem to have turned a corner.

Yeah, still a dogfight to the end. 5 points is the equivalent to Sale having achieved one try-bonus win. But does put them in a much better position. Still one win either way might be the difference.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/21674783

Discipline report is interesting. Scott really did man sausage up. Submitting faked documents to the RFU saying he was born in the UK was stupid. And he was working for 9 games illegally as he didn't have a visa (ancestory one was rejected in September). 5 points seems light given some of the other ones.

Is the points deduction not suspended until next season?

No, 5pts now, another 5 suspended. Have LW said whether they will contest or not?