Diamond in the Rough: Newcastle Boss Banned for Match Official Abuse
Steve Diamond has received a six-week ban for verbally abusing Match Officials following Newcastle Falcons’ Premiership match against Exeter Chiefs, on 29 March 2025.
The Falcons’ director of rugby is no stranger to rugby’s disciplinary system, having previously received several lengthy bans for Match Official Abuse (although the last of those offences came in 2019), and will thus have been unsurprised by the game’s zero-tolerance approach to this issue.
Mr Diamond was charged by the RFU with “conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Union and the Game” contrary to RFU Rule 5.12, and was alleged to have verbally abused Match Officials by saying:
(i) “I hope you c**ts can sleep tonight” to the match referee and his assistants in the tunnel immediately after the game; and
(ii) “You need to retire” (twice) to the Television Match Official during the post-match meal.
Mr Diamond admitted the charge and accepted that he had said the words complained of.
The task of the RFU Disciplinary Panel hearing the case was therefore to determine what sanction (if any) should be imposed.
This article will explain and reflect on the significance of the Panel’s written decision, published on 15 April, to impose a six-week ban.
The sanctioning process
In cases brought under RFU Rule 5.12, a disciplinary panel has a broad discretion as to sanction. However, the well-established practice in such cases is for the panel to have regard to the sanctioning guidelines for equivalent on-field offending in RFU Regulation 19 Appendix 2.
These guidelines set low-end, mid-range and top-end entry point sanctions, expressed as bans for a certain number of weeks/matches, for various offences contrary to the Laws of the Game. These entry point sanctions may then be mitigated down (by no more than 50%) and/or aggravated up, to arrive at the final sanction.
Notably, the RFU Head of Judiciary’s guidance note on sanctions for Match Official Abuse (the “HOJ Guidance”) expressly states that, when hearing Match Official Abuse cases brought under RFU Rule 5.12, disciplinary panels should apply the sanctioning guidelines for on-field offences contrary to Law 9.28 (“Players must respect of the authority of the referee”), as they would when hearing a case arising from a red card or a citing. However, in RFU Rule 5.12 cases, the panel has the power to suspend the effect of any sanction and to impose any other appropriate sanction (per RFU Regulation 19.4.63).
In exercising its discretion, the issues for the Panel in this case were:
(a) Should Mr Diamond be sanctioned separately in respect of the two incidents of verbal abuse?
(b) What is the appropriate sanctioning entry point for the offence(s)?
(c) Should the entry point sanction(s) be reduced because of any mitigating factors?
(d) Should the sanction(s) be increased because of any aggravating factors?
Should the two incidents be sanctioned separately?
On the first issue, the Panel decided that “it would be fair to deal with this as a course of conduct arising from the same circumstances and which should be considered in the round in terms of sanction”.[1] The Panel also noted that there was only one charge (a breach of RFU Rule 5.12), although it made clear that in other cases it may be appropriate for multiple offences to be sanctioned separately.
What is the appropriate entry point?
Considering the guidance on sanctions for Match Official Abuse referenced above, and given that Mr Diamond had admitted that his comments in the tunnel amounted to verbal abuse, the starting point for the Panel when determining the appropriate entry point was the sanctioning guidelines in RFU Regulation 19 Appendix 2 for verbal abuse of a Match Official contrary to Law 9.28.
The low-end, mid-range and top-end entry points for this offence are six weeks, 12 weeks and 18+ weeks, respectively.
It was then for the Panel to assess the seriousness of Mr Diamond’s offending, to determine which entry point to apply.
In relation to the incident in the tunnel, when he referred to the Match Officials as “c**ts”, Mr Diamond’s evidence was that he did not shout or raise his voice, had remained calm, and that he was being “sarcastic”. He characterised the interaction as a “private conversation” with Match Officials “with whom he shares a ‘kinship’ if not ‘friendship’” and explained that his “industrial language” was language which is used by others within the game, including Match Officials.[2]
As for the later interaction with the Television Match Official, in which Mr Diamond twice said “you need to retire”, Mr Diamond again explained that he was being “sarcastic”, because the official has been refereeing since Mr Diamond was playing.[3] Mr Diamond did not accept that these comments were verbally abusive but accepted that they amounted to the lesser offence of disrespecting the authority of a Match Official.
Mr Diamond was also keen to emphasise the context of his remarks. He had been frustrated that an act of foul play against a Newcastle player had been missed by the Match Officials in the build-up to Exeter’s winning try, in the final minute of the match.
He noted that this was an “intense” game “between two sides who are struggling financially and at the bottom of the league” and that the incident at the end of the game had caused a fracas on the touchline. It was accepted by the Match Officials that Mr Diamond had initially played the role of “peacemaker” (as he had not seen the incident), calling his team member back into the technical area.[4]
However, upon reviewing footage of the incident, Mr Diamond was “frustrated by the unwillingness to review the incident”, which led him to make the comments complained of to the Match Officials. Mr Diamond noted that the incident had been reviewed by the Head of Professional Match Officials, who had indicated that there had been an act of foul play.[5]
Nevertheless, Mr Diamond highlighted that he had very recently attended a local referees society dinner, where he had given an impromptu speech praising the community game’s referee and emphasising the need to respect referees.[6] However, he also seemed to draw a distinction between amateur referees and professional referees.[7]
The Panel concluded that this was a “low-end” offence, although it noted that it was “troubled by the use of the word ‘c**t’, acknowledging that it can be a triggering word which can cause particular and extreme offence”. Nevertheless, the Panel’s view was that “it was not for us to have in mind a league table of profanities” and that “use of any specific foul language in particular should not elevate an otherwise low end entry level of seriousness”.[8]
However, the Panel was clear that the context of the act of foul play having been missed by the Match Officials during the game “cannot act as mitigation”. It held:[9]
…There can be no excuse for calling a match official a “c**t” or for publicly calling a TMO’s fitness to act into question by suggesting he should retire. This applies as much to the professional game as to the community game.
It cuts no ice with the Panel either that [Mr Diamond] was effusive in praise of referees in the community game just nine days earlier or that the use of ‘industrial’ language is allegedly commonplace in the professional game, including amongst match officials.
Match official abuse is to be deprecated. […]
[Mr Diamond] lacks insight. He is a robust character who uses expressive language without thinking about the impact on others hearing it, or to whom it is directed, or on the interests of the game generally. Whilst his speech at [a local referees’ society] dinner acknowledges referees must be treated with respect, he does not appear to sufficiently appreciate that it brings the game into disrepute if match officials are abused or their integrity is questioned. If there was ever a time when such conduct would be tolerated (and the Panel does not agree it has ever been acceptable), the RFU has made it clear that such behaviour will now be sanctioned firmly.
The Panel also made clear that it considered Mr Diamond’s comments to the Television Match Official, suggesting that he should retire, to be abusive, on the basis that they were disparaging with reference to a protected characteristic (i.e., his age).[10]
Mitigation
The RFU, and seemingly the Panel, accepted that Mr Diamond’s prior offending was not to be considered when mitigating / aggravating the entry point sanction, as his most recent offence was some six years ago.[11]
The Panel accepted that Mr Diamond had apologised to the Match Officials by email. It was also to his credit that he had conducted himself well during the hearing, was “relatively restrained” when interviewed on TV about the game, had acted as “peacemaker” during the aforementioned touchline fracas, and had spoken so positively about Match Officials at the recent referees’ society dinner. [12]
However, the Panel was “not wholly convinced” that he was “as remorseful as he said he was”. The Panel stated that it was “left with the sense that [Mr Diamond] still believes he should be able to say whatever he wants to match officials if he feels the circumstances warrant it. He need to understand he cannot”.[13]
Accordingly, the Panel deducted only two weeks from the entry point sanction of six weeks, rather than the permitted maximum of three.[14]
Aggravation
After mitigating the sanction down to four weeks, the Panel then added an additional two weeks by way of aggravation, in accordance with the HOJ Guidance, which mandates such an increase for any low-end offence of Match Official Abuse, in accordance with RFU Regulation 19.4.55(b).[15]
Mr Diamond was thus banned for a total period of six weeks, which will cover Newcastle’s five remaining fixtures this season, and will continue into the start of next season.
Notably, the ban applies to all “Match Day Activities”, defined in RFU Regulation 19 as including, for a coach, “being with the match day squad on the day of the match up until an hour after the match”.
Conclusions
There are three key take-aways from the decision in RFU v. Steve Diamond (2025).
First, that multiple instances of offending are likely to be treated as a single offence for sanctioning purposes, where the incidents amount to a single course of conduct arising from the same circumstances.
Second, that historic offending is unlikely to be considered relevant when assessing sanction. How old an offence must be to be treated as irrelevant is not clear. However, the Panel’s approach in this case is broadly consistent with the approach of the RFU disciplinary panel in RFU v. Owen Farrell (2020), where a four-and-a-half-year-old ban was discounted.
Third, whilst Match Official Abuse has always been policed strictly in rugby union, it is now being dealt with even more severely. The HOJ Guidance means that anyone guilty of such offending will receive a greater sanction. This guidance came into force from 1 January 2024 in response to concerns about the frequency of Match Official Abuse within the game, but Mr Diamond is the first Premiership coach to feel its force. The case should serve as a warning to all involved in the game that significant sanctions are likely to be imposed for any Match Official Abuse and, thus, care should be taken to ensure that any comments, private or public, to or about Match Officials remain respectful.
Article by Ben Cisneros. Ben is an Associate at Morgan Sports Law with a dedicated rugby practice. This article reflects only the author’s personal views. Please email ben.cisneros@morgansl.com with any enquiries.
References
[1] See para. 25 of the decision
[2] See para. 13(e) of the decision
[3] See para. 13(g) of the decision
[4] See paras. 13(b)-(c) of the decision
[5] See para. 13(h) of the decision
[6] See para. 12 of the decision
[7] See para. 13(e) of the decision
[8] See para. 28 of the decision
[9] See paras. 21-24 of the decision
[10] See para. 27 of the decision
[11] See para. 29 of the decision
[12] See para. 29 of the decision
[13] See para. 30 of the decision
