Batley Bulldogs Chairman KEVIN NICHOLAS responds to an article in last week’s League Express by former Sheffield Eagles Chairman IAN SWIRE
After seeing yet another attack on the RFL last week in this newspaper by Ian Swire, writing about a decision he clearly disagrees with in relation to his friend Mark Aston, who was suspended for 18 months.
I felt that his criticism was unfair and that I should try to put forward a balanced position.
There are plenty of things that someone could comment on and criticise the RFL for, but I believe this is not one of them. The RFL has not entered the public debate, I would have thought, because there is still a hearing to be heard and I presume they would not wish to be seen as trying to influence any final decision. However, as a result they are not able to defend the process.
Hence I believe someone needs to do so.
Insurance problems
The starting point is the present position regarding head injuries in our sport, where Robert Hicks and others have been leading work to address issues to protect our sport going forward and also to protect players in the future.
We must not forget that RFL is now paying increased insurance premiums, which indirectly affects all clubs as it means less monies for other areas of the sport and I believe the latest premium is £1.6 million per year, which is not insubstantial.
I am sure everyone will agree.
Then we have a considerable number of former players participating in a possible insurance claim as they are suffering forms of dementia possibly linked to past head injuries. If that is successful then insurance companies going forward clearly will increase premiums and will be reluctant to insure at all unless they are convinced the sport is taking action to avoid future claims.
Then we have at least one claim where it is alleged that a player suffered a head injury in a game, returned to play perhaps when he should not have done then suffered another head injury in his return game and has suffered life-changing problems since then.
If successful, that will clearly be a substantial claim in itself but also surely as a sport we do not want to risk such a thing happening to any of our players going forward if it can be avoided.
So one of the areas the RFL has worked upon with expert medical advice is a Return to Play Protocol, which is for the benefit of everyone in the game. This is not some ill-thought-out knee-jerk reaction but is carefully thought through, most significantly with the help of medical experts, and that is the key fact.
RFL Protocols
It is not always straightforward and there may be ways it could be changed slightly to improve it for all stakeholders. But until that happens everyone has to abide by the present rules for the benefit of players’ health and the sport’s finances.
All clubs know the rules and from my knowledge coaches and club medical staff all know the protocol. If we are unsure on any point, if we contact the RFL our experience is they will do their absolute best to assist and advise.
The issue in the Mark Aston case appears to be that in the Protocol an independent medical person has to supervise the process and sign off the fact that the Protocol has been properly followed such that the player passes a head test and is safe to then return to play.
The medical adviser has to sign it off and clubs are fully aware that if that does not happen the player is ineligible to play. That is a simple position and should not need intervention from the RFL to advise clubs that a player is ineligible as the Protocol itself is self-explanatory in this respect.
Sometimes clubs can be frustrated by this when they feel the player is fit and maybe the player feels he is fit, but we are not medical experts and rules are there to be followed to protect players.
The Evidence
I have read the summary of the evidence in this case, which seems to say that the physio Mick Heys, who himself admitted the allegation, knew the player had not been signed off by the medical advisor and so was ineligible to play and advised Mark Aston verbally on the day of the game so that he was also aware. He checked and the Gameday portal at the RFL did not say he was ineligible and so a decision was made to play him and stand any consequences.
That seems to be the crux of the matter.
I understand the Gameday portal relates to bans and registrations and not medical protocols and so it is irrelevant as you would not expect it on there to refer to medical protocols. It could be said that it should do and that would help clubs, but with cost-cutting the RFL simply does not have staff to do that and clubs know that.
The important point is that a medical person must sign the player off as fit to play, having followed the return-to-play protocols.
So eligibility should be therefore known by the club without reference to a portal.
Gameday Portal
An appeal tribunal may have a different view and if so the RFL may very well have to change practice and incur costs of someone to carry out the job of monitoring medical positions and updating a Gameday portal accordingly. But I would not have thought that would extend the RFL responsibility to do reminder communications to clubs about a player not being signed off to play, as the independent medical person is instructed by the club, not the RFL. So why would they need to be informed of something they should already know. I just cannot see how the RFL has failed in any way here.
I read a suggestion that the club should be the party to investigate any potential breaches in protocol, not the RFL, which I find a ridiculous proposition. This is not just a question of breaching club rules, which they can investigate in any event, but it is a game-wide issue affecting all clubs and players and a breach of governing body rules, hence to be policed by the governing body, which is straightforward.
In the courts in this country often a right of appeal is only exercisable on a point of law and not simply because a party wants a second bite of the cherry and a rehearing of a case. So there is nothing unusual about RFL appeal rules.
Appeal Procedure
The RFL tribunals are headed by a judge and any appeal would be heard by a different judge and so it is not someone marking their own homework, as is being alleged. So unless the integrity of the judges and others on the tribunal is being questioned then it is a fair system.
Ian Swire, to support his argument, referred to a club playing an ineligible player against Sheffield and the RFL taking no action and said that was an example of administrative errors dealt with behind closed doors. But that is simply not accurate as I know personally because Batley Bulldogs were the club that played an ineligible player against Sheffield a number of years ago. It was an error on our part which was not mentioned before the game but afterwards was reported by Sheffield to the RFL.
As a result the RFL gave Batley Bulldogs a points deduction which, had it stood, would have meant we were relegated. It was a complicated case so I will not go into details, but we lodged an appeal and appeared before an RFL appeals tribunal headed by
His Honour Judge Peter Charlesworth when we won the appeal, our points deduction was quashed and we were not thereby relegated.
So firstly the RFL did openly punish a club that played an ineligible player and it could have been a very severe punishment.
Secondly, the fact that we were successful at an RFL appeals tribunal shows that it is a fair system and is not a case of simply marking your own homework.
The RFL has now agreed that the appeal can be heard by Sport Resolutions, which clearly pleases the Mark Aston camp, which is fine. In the past I understood that the reason appeals generally were not referred there was simply a costs issue as the process is more expensive than a RFL appeal tribunal.
18-month Suspension
Finally I hear strong criticism of the present decision of an 18-months ban and clearly it is severe and on appeal it may or may not be varied. But I believe there are two relevant considerations here.
Firstly, Mick Heys admitted the matter and so was given credit and received a lesser ban than Mark Aston, which is standard practice and therefore the tribunal would probably have given a lesser ban had Mark Aston done the same.
Secondly, the suggestion that this somehow was a minor administrative error and therefore the sentence appears more severe I do not believe is the case.
These protocols, arrived at with expert advice and to protect players, are important and had the player suffered another head injury in a game where medical sign off had not happened and, like another player, suffered life-changing consequences, would that still have been deemed a minor procedural error or would it have been seen in a far more serious light?
In conclusion, I think the RFL and the appeal procedure has received unfair criticism in this matter.
We should now let justice take its course and if Sports Resolution criticises the RFL and its procedures, then everything will need to be reviewed.
But until then we should reserve judgement.
This whole topic of head injuries in sport is difficult enough as it is.
Click here to get the digital edition of League Express
Click here to subscribe to the print edition of League Express
League Express is also widely available from local newsagents across the north of England.
