Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Any disciplinary issues requiring review that arise during the course of the Rugby World Cup, either on-field or off-field, are dealt with by an independent disciplinary process which operates in a similar way to arbitration. Like arbitration, the
process does not involve the courts, but is a bespoke judicial system that deals with issues privately, with the decisions being made public. All parties involved in the Rugby World Cup are bound by respect and adhere to this process.
Most major sporting events, including the Olympics and Commonwealth Games, have a system of arbitration in place for dealing with urgent disputes, with the role frequently played by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The system in place for
the Rugby World Cup is organised by World Rugby, and is unique to the sport.
During the pool stages of the 2015 World Cup, there were 17 cases that went before a judicial officer (some of which went on to be appealed) - obviously the numbers will vary tremendously from one tournament to the next but this is not atypical for
a rugby world cup although it is higher than you would expect to see in other sports (largely because of the highly physical and technical nature of rugby). The issues in question have been concerning misconduct on the field of play, which was
either not spotted or suitably punished - ie dangerous behaviour such as lifting a player against the rules, stamping, hand contact on eyes, or dangerous tackles.
For example, in the New Zealand v Argentina game on 20 September 2015, Argentinian player Mariano Galarza was spotted making 'contact with the eye or eye area' of an opponent and was referred to a hearing on 23 September 2015 which resulted in a nine-week
ban, ruling him out not only from Argentina's next game on 25 September 2015, but for the remainder of the World Cup (a sanction that has turned out to be a severe one indeed, given Argentina’s progress to the semi-finals). He appealed but
the appeal panel, which heard the matter on 27 September 2015, upheld the original decision.
So far in this Rugby World Cup, the issues mostly concern dangerous play or similar conduct. The majority of these incidents are not deliberate; if they are proved to be deliberate then the sanctions will be more severe.
A recent controversial example of this was the case of the Scottish players Ross Ford and Jonny Gray, who were given 3 week bans by the judicial officer for a dangerous “lifting” tackle which they were deemed to have carried out jointly
and deliberately on Samoan star Jack Lam in Scotland’s final pool game. Again this was a substantial penalty, having the effect of ending both players’ participation in the tournament, with a quarter-final against Australia around
the corner. The players, the Scotland team and indeed the Scottish population at large were aggrieved by this decision which effectively excluded two of their best players from the team; both players had denied any deliberate misconduct or dangerous
play. It was widely felt that the severity of the sanctions were inconsistent with those handed down in respect of other offences (for example Irish player Sean O’Brien was given a one week suspension for a punch in a game against France).
There was also concern that the Citing Commissioner involved was Australian, fuelling a perception that the citings of Ford and Gray were calculated to result in their exclusion from the Scotland vs Australia quarter-final.
The players appealed: the appeal was heard the day after the first instance decision was handed down, and the outcome - upholding the appeals and overturning the bans – was announced within a matter of hours. The players were free to play in
the quarter-final, although ultimately this proved in vain as Scotland were denied a famous victory against Australia by the (equally controversial) decision of referee Craig Joubert to award Australia a last minute penalty, which television replays
showed should never have been awarded (a decision which, unlike the players’ conduct, is not subject to the disciplinary process considered here). Look out for our post tomorrow on the Joubert decision.
Other issues that may arise include bringing the sport into disrepute but this is rare as players tend to behave themselves during tournaments (at least until they have been knocked out).
Doping is dealt with slightly differently as a player will be suspended immediately if they fail a drugs test. There will still be a hearing but this generally takes longer to arrange due to the nature of the evidence required.
The system is generally considered to be effective due to:
Of course, that is not to say that decisions are not occasionally controversial or that errors are never made, as the Ford and Gray cases demonstrate. However this is perhaps less a reflection on the system itself and more that it inevitably depends
on human beings to make judgment calls which are always vulnerable to criticism. Nevertheless in light of the controversy over the Ford and Gray cases, World Rugby has stated that the process will be reviewed after the World Cup to identify possible
improvements. It remains to be seen what those improvements might be, although ensuring that decisions are given speedily is one likely recommendation, there having been complaints the decision in Ford and Gray was not given for 11 hours, only
then to be overturned, with consistency of sanctions also likely to be a focus.
Initial interview by Jenny Rayner; article then updated by Daniel Saoul.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Daniel Saoul is a barrister at 4 New Square Chambers. He has a broad practice encompassing all types of commercial disputes (including costs) and sports law.
Photo credit: Alasdair Russell
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234