Tom Williams made the fall guy at Harlequins in misguided ERC crackdown
'Hard cases make bad law' is a legal maxim often misused by the common man, but it is entirely apposite to describe the recent rulings made by the independent European Rugby Cup disciplinary panel.
The controversial replacement of Harlequins substitute Tom Williams, for a blood injury, allowed the injured Nick Evans to retake the field and attempt a game-winning dropped goal that would have beaten Leinster in the semi-finals of last season's Heineken Cup.
The precise machinations and culpability of the parties allegedly involved in the incident will be obtained only by the administration of a truth serum; which was beyond even the far-reaching powers of the ERC disciplinary body. They will certainly have made little impact on the Harlequins coach, Dean Richards, with his many years of experience of being cross-examined by Queen's Counsels while he was an officer in the Leicestershire Constabulary.
No doubt Richards expected the decision to go the same way as previous cases, in which there was a suspicion that he or his colleagues had not played by the book: 'Not guilty â€" we suspect you did it but we cannot find the proof.'
He cannot, in his most extreme dreams, have thought they would return a verdict that said: 'Not guilty â€" we suspect you did it but as we can't prove it we're going to be extra-specially severe on the only person we can decisively put in the frame.'
The transcript of the ERC ruling will make fascinating reading, as it will show how that body was able to be so confident about circumstantial evidence in returning the verdicts. It will also, no doubt, explain what justification there was for finding the player acted on his own in trying to pretend he had been injured.
It should make epic reading, because it surely must address how and why Williams acted in the way alleged. Williams was only on the substitutes' bench for the game and had sat there for the first 70 minutes of the match. If he acted alone, he probably had secreted about him a device to deliver the blood substance to his mouth.
Given that he did not leave the technical area during the second half and was given little notice of the fact that he was replacing another substitute, Chris Malone, he must have had any such device about his person for at least the 30 minutes after half-time. He must also have obtained the said device and brought it to the ground, unless he used the break to nip off to the nearest blood substance-administering device shop.
Given that he was on the field for only five minutes, as a junior player Williams must be remarkably mature and cynical to conclude independently that after this short time, the greater good meant that his team needed him to go off and be replaced by an already injured player, who may, or may not, have been able to stand up long enough to take a drop at goal, and in circumstances which were not guaranteed to occur.
Williams did not admit the charge and the finding that cleared the medical staff and Richards necessarily implies that the people who examined the injury were satisfied it was genuine. In the light of all this the ERC must have had other evidence to prove the aforesaid were conned by Williams, that being the inescapable conclusion from their findings.
Despite the claim made by Leinster, their medical staff did not have the right to examine Williams, as the tournament was played under International Rugby Board law, and law 3.10 does not give this right; therefore this does not imply guilt as asserted by Leinster. The fact that Williams was seen to be fiddling with his mouth is not conclusive evidence.
The cocky and dull wink given by Williams does not look good, but that alone is insufficient to overcome the difficulties as set out above and prevent the player from plying his trade for a whole year.
It is curious that the club have been fined when their two medical staff and coach were cleared of wrongdoing. If clubs are to be visited by the unilateral actions of their employees, they had better disclose this to their indemnity insurers.
Further curiousness is aroused by the size of the club fine, at â'¬250,000 (£216,000). If the club officials were not involved, there is no logical basis for any fine and even if there was a technical reason it should only have been a token. Further, for what reason is half the fine suspended? Suspensions are used to ensure that in the future there is no similar behaviour. If there is no specified behaviour, there can be no repeat and thus no reason for the suspension.
See what I mean about hard cases and bad law?
Of all this, Jeremy Paxman at his magnificently sneering best might say: "Come off it!" I have no more proof than ERC had, but I think that this was one of an increasing number of occasions when a variety of teams, both club and international, have bent the rules. I applaud the determination of ERC, but they are wrong here.
Quins did not win that game and ERC should have waited for a better case to make their point. Indeed, it would have been better to make no findings in this case but issue a strong message that should sufficient evidence be available in similar cases their punishments would be severe.
As it is, they have two parties who for different reasons have got legitimate cause to complain about their punishment, especially Williams, the fall guy.
Although we may think in a 'Glenn Hoddle karma' way that they got what was deserved, this is a seriously flawed judgment.
The only solution is for substitutes to come and go without restriction; something else that rugby league has got right.[/b]
