RFU v Tom Youngs: Creative and Meaningful Sanctioning
On 21 June 2021, the RFU published the decision of its independent disciplinary panel (the “Panel”) to sanction Leicester Tigers hooker, Tom Youngs, for conduct prejudicial to the interests of the game, contrary to RFU Rule 5.12.
The case arose out of the fractious and somewhat controversial end to Leicester’s match against Bristol Bears on 5 June 2021, which saw Leicester lose 23-26 at home. After the final whistle, Mr Youngs approached the referee, Ian Tempest, and was heard to have said:[1]
Youngs: “What you did mate, fucking not strong enough, for fucking not giving the penalty try”
Tempest: “On which one?”
Youngs: “And you get a fuckin fight like that”
Tempest: “On which one?”
Youngs: “Mate, all of them”
Tempest: “Ok, ok”
Youngs: “On fuckin all of them. You know, Ian. Watch it back, Ian”
The Panel handed Mr Youngs a two-week ban, half of which was suspended for one season on the condition that he attends the England Rugby Refereeing Award course, referees two age-grade rugby matches by the end of February 2022 and does not re-offend.
This article will offer a brief analysis of the case and, in particular, the inventive approach to sanctioning.
1. The Charge
According to an RFU statement, Mr Youngs was charged with conduct prejudicial to the interests of the game, contrary to RFU Rule 5.12, for disrespecting the authority of the match official (contrary to World Rugby Law 9.28).
Notably, Mr Tempest did not report the matter himself and told the Panel that he “never once felt threatened or intimidated” by Mr Youngs’ actions. He added that it had been an “unusual and highly emotional ending to the match” but “didn’t expect the matter to be taken any further”.[2] Nevertheless, the RFU brought the charge under Rule 5.12, as the incident took place after the final whistle.
Rule 5.12, as noted previously, is a rather broad provision, under which a variety of types of misconduct can be charged.[3] As such, a player charged under Rule 5.12 may be punished by (without limitation) a reprimand, financial penalty or suspension from playing (per RFU Regulation 19.11.7). The disciplinary panel thus has a broad discretion.
Relevant to this case was also RFU Regulation 19 Appendix 2, the RFU sanctioning guidelines for breaches of the Laws of the Game. As regards disrespecting the authority of a match official contrary to Law 9.28, the sanctioning guidelines provide that the low-end sanctioning entry point is a two-week ban, the mid-range a four-week ban, and the top-end six weeks plus.
2. The Decision
From the outset, the Panel noted that Mr Youngs’ language was “wholly unacceptable”, as was his suggestion that the referee was “not strong enough”.[4]
The RFU had considered Mr Youngs’ actions to be a top-end offence, owing to the nature of the language used, his status as captain of Leicester, and given the work that the RFU has done to uphold Rugby’s values and to ensure that referees are not subjected to abuse. However, the RFU suggested that part of the sanction could be suspended in order that Mr Youngs could undertake a refereeing course, and refereeing age-grade matches.[5]
As for Mr Youngs, he explained that he had seen “red mist”, having had a “burning sense of injustice” as to what had happened at the end of the game. At the time he swore at Mr Tempest, there was still disorder on the pitch, and Mr Youngs emphasised the importance of this context. He also emphasized that his foul language was not directed at the referee in a targeted or descriptive way, but was rather “expletive laden language”, and he had not questioned the referee’s integrity or honesty. Mr Youngs’ submission was this his offence sat at the lower end of the seriousness spectrum.[6]
The Panel recognised that, as this was a Rule 5.12 case and not one of Foul Play, it was not strictly bound by the sanctioning framework of RFU Regulation 19. Nonetheless, the Panel did “perform a comparative analysis by way of regulation 19” but overall had regard to what was the “fair and proportionate sanction”.[7]
It was clear that the Panel considered this to be a “highly unusual”[8] case and considered Mr Tempest’s view that this was an “unusual and emotional event” to go to the very heart of what had happened.[9] It therefore placed significant weight upon the context of Mr Youngs’ comments, noting that “[i]t does not excuse Mr Youngs’ behaviour, but it goes some way to explaining it”.[10]
Ultimately, the Panel considered the offence to be one of mid-range, not persuaded one way or the other by the respective submissions of Mr Youngs and the RFU. Nonetheless, the Panel was quick to emphasise the importance of protecting referees from abuse and endorsed the words of the disciplinary panel in RFU v. Steve Diamond (2017):[11]
…The game is built upon respect. There must be respect for officials.
Rugby’s Core Values are not empty words or slogans which can be signed up to and then ignored. They are not to be treated as useful bolt-ons dreamt up by a marketing team. They are integral to the game and are what make the game special.
Referees are vital to the sport. Without them there would be no games. They deserve respect and they must be respected.
The Panel added that:[12]
Social media is flooded with comments about referees. Often wildly differing views will be canvassed. Often foul language and abuse is used. Whilst such behaviour might be the privilege of armchair and often anonymous critics, this has no place on the field of play, either before the final whistle or afterwards.
Referees must and will be respected. That must come from all players whether they are at the very highest level of the game or not, but professional players must be expected to set the example for all to follow.
Though the Panel might also have noted that social media abuse of referees is also unacceptable, it is clear that the use of foul language on the field of play towards referees is not and will not be tolerated.
Although the Panel did not explicitly follow the sanctioning framework of RFU Regulation 19, it nonetheless adopted the mid-range entry point of a four-week ban, before considering off-field mitigating factors.
The Panel noted that Mr Youngs has “rugby running through his veins”,[13] had made a “vast and significant contribution”[14] to English rugby, and has a “great love and affinity with the community game”.[15] The Panel also recognised that Mr Youngs had called Mr Tempest to apologise a few days after the incident and was “clearly deeply remorseful that he had let himself down”.[16] It described his actions as “plainly out of character”.[17]
Mr Youngs had previously been sanctioned for several on-field acts of Foul Play, but never for an offence similar to the one with which he was now charged, so the Panel did not consider his disciplinary record to be relevant. As such, the Panel reduced the sanction by 50%, to two weeks.
Further, the Panel considered there was “much force”[18] in the RFU’s suggestion of a refereeing course and thus suspended half of the two-week ban for one season on the condition(s) that Mr Youngs attends the England Rugby Refereeing Award course, referees two age-grade matches by 28 February 2022, and does not re-offend (on or off the pitch). It is not clear whether such re-offending is intended to include on-field acts of Foul Play, or merely offences similar to this case.
Importantly, given that Mr Youngs had already been suspended for one match by his club, Leicester, following the incident, he was deemed to have already served the unsuspended part of his ban. This is consistent with the approach taken by the disciplinary panel in, for example, RFU v. Joseph, Stooke and Oghre (2021).
3. Analysis
Overall, the Panel’s decision is an empathetic one which recognises the inevitable emotion and passion of elite sport, whilst making it clear that the disrespect of match officials will not be tolerated. Some might consider Mr Youngs to have been fortunate to avoid harsher punishment but, in all the circumstances of the case, the sanction imposed seems proportionate.
In particular, the RFU’s flexible and creative approach to sanctioning must be welcomed. The suggestion of Mr Youngs undertaking a refereeing course and refereeing youth matches himself creates a far more meaningful sanction than any playing suspension. As others have pointed out, it is akin to a ‘speed awareness course’ for those who have received speeding ticket, and it is hoped that such an approach will be taken to other cases in future.
Indeed, this author is of the view that such an inventive approach could be adopted for a wider range of offences. World Rugby is soon to be introducing a scheme under which players who commit a red card offence for dangerous tackling will be able to opt to undergo a period of tackle technique training, in return for their ban being reduced. On-field instances of abuse against players or officials – be it racist, homophobic or otherwise – ought to be approached similarly, by way of re-education.
Notably, however, had Mr Youngs’ offence been committed prior to the final whistle and thus been treated as a red card offence/citing, as opposed to an offence under Rule 5.12, this creative approach would have been out of bounds. Red card offences are dealt with strictly under Regulation 19, which lays down the sanction(s) to be imposed in its Appendix 2. These sanctions are expressed only in terms of suspensions from playing. Indeed, RFU Regulation 19.11.17(a) also makes clear that the effect of such sanctions must not be suspended. Thus, when Kyle Sinckler was charged with disrespecting the authority of a referee earlier this year, the possibility of suspending half of his two-week ban was not on the table.
In this author’s view, the regulations ought to allow for greater flexibility, to enable a more effective sanction to be imposed for Foul Play. Of course, there is a need for rugby’s authorities to impose sanctions that will have a deterrent effect, and to punish wrongdoing, but the most effective way to change behaviour is to tackle its cause – be it maleducation, ignorance, poor technique or otherwise. Notably, though, this is something that would need to come from World Rugby, rather than the RFU, as the RFU is required to follow the sanctioning guidelines laid down by World Rugby.[19] The RFU could, of course, bring charges against players under Rule 5.12 in addition to any red card/citing, to open the possibility of a broader range of sanctions, but this may not always be appropriate, and would make access to such measures dependent on the approach of the RFU and/or the disciplinary panel in each individual case.
This highlights the uncomfortable relationship between misconduct cases brought under RFU Rule 5.12 and Regulation 19. Aside from the differing sanctions available, it was clear that the Panel in Youngs was reluctant to follow the framework laid down by Regulation 19 because, on a literal reading, it applies only to instances of Foul Play. The Panel broadly seemed to mirror the process of Regulation 19 but did so less explicitly than other RFU disciplinary panels have done in recent cases (see, for example, RFU v. van Rensburg and RFU v. Lewington et al and RFU v. Joseph, Stooke and Oghre). As this author has previously argued, it is time for a more predictable sanctioning regime to be introduced, specifically for Rule 5.12/misconduct cases.
Lastly, the Panel’s decision is a welcome, if not somewhat disingenuous, reminder of the importance of rugby’s values. The Panel was right to stress the importance of respect as a foundational value of the sport and, at a time when online abuse has perhaps never been worse, it is a principle which many would do well to live by. Nonetheless, Mr Youngs may well feel that this is a somewhat empty basis for a sanction, given the disconnect between the way that players are treated by the professional game and these so-called values. Still, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and it is clear that referees are – and should be – a protected species.
[1] RFU v. Tom Youngs (18 June 2021), para 15
[2] Ibid. para 18
[3] Compare, for example, RFU v. Danny Cipriani (discussed here) with RFU v. Rohan Janse van Rensburg case (discussed here).
[4] Youngs, para 16
[5] Ibid., paras 21-23
[6] Ibid., paras 26-29
[7] Ibid., para 37
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., para 33
[10] Ibid., para 35
[11] Ibid., para 38
[12] Ibid., paras 41-42
[13] Ibid., para 44
[14] Ibid., para 37
[15] Ibid., para 43
[16] Ibid., para 16
[17] Ibid., para 15
[18] Ibid., para 42
