Case Number:

ON/016/23

Josh McGuire #13, Warrington

Competition:

Warm Up Matches

Match:

Warrington Wolves v Leigh Leopards

Match Date:

2023-02-04

Incident:

Unacceptable Language

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (f)

Verbal abuse based on race, colour, religion, gender, sexual preference, disability, national or ethnic origin or any other form of Unacceptable Behaviour or Language

Grade F

Fine:

£1000

Sanctions:

6+

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Not Guilty

Summary of CM's submissions on the Charge / evidence:

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 9th February 2023, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(f) during the above match.

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 1 33 15 SharePoint footage time of the above match. You were dismissed following the incident. The referee’s report states that; “In the 71st minute of the game, Warrington Wolves number 11 Ben Currie scored a try. After the try was awarded numerous players from both sides came together exchanging insults. At this point I witnessed Warrington Wolves number 13 Josh McGuire use unacceptable language relating to disability in abusing an opponent. He was then dismissed from the field.” The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary and are against the spirit of the game.

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade F offence – Verbal abuse based on race, colour, religion, gender, sexual preference, disability, national or ethnic origin or any other form of Unacceptable Behaviour or Language

The normal suspension range for such offence is 6 matches plus.

• The Match Review Panel were concerned at the behaviour of Mr McGuire.

• After a try is scored Mr McGuire is dismissed by the match referee Marcus Griffiths.

• The referee’s report states the following:

In the 71st minute of the game, Warrington Wolves number 11 Ben Currie scored a try. After the try was awarded numerous players from both sides came together exchanging insults. At this point I witnessed Warrington Wolves number 13 Josh McGuire use unacceptable language relating to disability. He was then dismissed from the field.

• The Match Review Panel see no reason to disbelieve the referee.

• Mr Griffiths is clear that he says he witnesses Mr McGuire say the words

• This amounts to Unacceptable Language based on disability pursuant to the RFL’s definition as per the Operational Rules.

• Word used is derogatory and negative - term of abuse and disparagement towards disabled individuals and squarely falls under RFL’s definition of Unacceptable Language.

• The Panel believed that Mr McGuire’s actions were unnecessary, against the true spirit of the game and brings the game into disrepute.

• In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a breach of Law 15.1(f) – Verbal abuse based on race, colour, religion, gender, sexual preference, disability, national or ethnic origin or any other form of Unacceptable Behaviour or Language.

• Zero Tolerance approach of RFL towards such cases.

• Verbal abuse based on disability is unacceptable and has no place in the sport of Rugby League or society.

• Mr McGuire’s standards have fallen below what is expected of a player and amount to Misconduct.

• Education to form part of any sanction imposed.

Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence:

Player in attendance alongside Daryl Powell (Head Coach), Karl Fitzpatrick (CEO) & Kylie Leuluai (Head of Rugby Operations). Player pleads Not Guilty.

JM explained it had been a fiery game and he had exchanged words with the opponent following a try as he had taken exception to an incident in a previous tackle. He said emotions were running high and that the opposition has a number of former Warrington players in their side.

He added he worked with the club’s PDRL team and had a disability himself. The word he had been accused of saying was not in his vocabulary and he again reiterated he had not said what had been accused.

DP addressed the Tribunal and explained there was a lot of noise happening around the time of the incident as a try had just been scored. There were insults being exchanged between the teams, however, he felt that the witnesses were unclear. He noted that the Referee has spent time in close proximity to the Leigh players before making his decision.

He felt that JM would not have used the words he was accused of saying as he has a disability himself and works with both the club’s PDRL side and Disabled Soldiers in the local community. This was not in JM’s character and being found Guilty of this charge would cause harm to JM. He concluded that there was too much doubt to find JM guilty.

KF felt that there was some doubt by the Referee when questioned. He noted that the Fourth Official was closer to JM and the time of the alleged incident and that he did not report anything. He informed the Tribunal that the Referee had talked to Peter Moran (Warrington Cone Technician) after the alleged incident and that if the incident had been so severe he would have sent JM off immediately.

Decision:

Guilty

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal reminded itself of the burden of proof. The RFL must prove the case and whilst the Tribunal acknowledged that the standard of proof should be somewhere between the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt, the Tribunal concluded that bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation, the Tribunal would only find the case proved if they reached a high standard approximate to beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing less would do.

Accordingly, the Tribunal asked itself whether it could be sure (beyond reasonable doubt) that the offending words were said by Mr McGuire. Could it have been someone else or could the witnesses have misheard?

In considering that straightforward factual issue the Tribunal reminded itself of two important principles.
Firstly, whilst one person’s word can be sufficient to prove a case to the high standard required, namely approximate to beyond reasonable doubt, nevertheless in such circumstances caution needs to be applied.

Secondly, the Tribunal reminded itself that it must consider not only the issue of whether Mr Griffiths was deliberately telling lies but also the potential for Mr Griffiths having made an honest mistake. The same applied to the Leigh player who agreed to provide evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that the RFL had proved to a high standard, approximate to beyond reasonable doubt that Mr McGuire had said the offending words. Accordingly, the Tribunal had no hesitation in concluding that Mr McGuire was guilty of breaching rule 15.1 (f).

In reaching that conclusion, the Tribunal had carefully considered the evidence of Mr Griffiths. The Tribunal found him to be an impressive, detailed, straightforward and credible witness. He was categoric as to what he had heard.

The Tribunal was satisfied that there was no realistic possibility of fabrication by Mr Griffiths. Mr McGuire conceded that there was no previous history between them. The Tribunal concluded that any suggestion of fabrication was fanciful. The Tribunal therefore concentrated upon the possibility of mistake. This involved firstly, considering the possibility that different words were said and secondly that if they were said it was said by someone else.

When considering the issue of mistake, once again the Tribunal found Mr Griffiths to be an impressive, fair and credible witness. He was clear and precise as to what he heard, whom he heard say it and he had no doubt it was Mr McGuire. He was stood only 2 meters away from Mr McGuire and unlike the Fourth Official (who was stood closer) he was looking at Mr McGuire.

The Tribunal concluded that even if the allegation against Mr McGuire was made only by Mr Griffiths the case would be proved to the high standard required. Corroboration was not required having regard to the impressive nature of the evidence of Mr Griffiths.

However, the Tribunal also heard from a Leigh player. He is not by definition an impartial witness being from the opposing team. Nevertheless, the Tribunal found him to be an impressive witness. He was categoric that he heard the words said by Mr McGuire.

It was obvious that he did not attend the hearing with enthusiasm at getting a fellow professional into trouble. On the contrary, he did not want to give evidence against Mr McGuire and did not want to describe the words he heard. It was only when pressed that he reluctantly described hearing the offending words. He was cross examined and challenged robustly by Mr Fitzpatrick, and he stood firm. He maintained the words were said. It was obvious he took no pleasure in giving evidence against Mr McGuire.

Another Leigh player was questioned by Mr Wild (RFL Compliance Manager) and was of little assistance to the Tribunal. He heard something said but he could not be sure what was said and by whom and we attach no weight to his evidence either in favour or against.

The Tribunal considered carefully the evidence of Mr McGuire whilst reminding itself that he did not have any burden of proof. In doing so the Tribunal concluded that Mr McGuire was not telling the truth. His account lacked credibility and detail. He generalised and concentrated on making grand statements as to his character rather than focusing upon the events.

Mr McGuire was adamant that he would not say words like that and he described all that he has done in the community. The Tribunal took that very much into account but it was insufficient to create a doubt by undermining the overwhelming evidence against him.


The Tribunal took into account the submissions of Mr Fitzpatrick and Mr Powell. These include the following:

• The fact that Mr McGuire has a disability himself
• The ancillary noise from the crowd of 5 ½ thousand
• The noise from other players who were in the close vicinity
• The good character of Mr McGuire and all that he does in the community
• The fact that Mr Moran disputed the words of Mr Griffiths and immediately left the field
• The fact that the Leigh player providing evidence had a motive to lie
• The fact that Mr Griffiths used the words “I think” on occasions during his evidence
• The fact the fourth official was 1 metre away (although facing away from Mr McGuire) and therefore closer than Mr Griffiths to Mr McGuire

The Tribunal carefully considered the above points and placed them in the context of all of the evidence heard during the hearing but ultimately the Tribunal found Mr Griffiths and the Leigh player individually to be impressive and credible witnesses. The cumulative effect was overwhelming.

He was therefore guilty of the offence.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

The MRP submit that this matter should be dealt with a zero-tolerance approach given the seriousness of the charge.

It would be remiss not to mention the current social outlook on life has changed with people now understanding the need for more inclusive and diverse cultures in all aspects of life with the constant Anti-Discrimination messages that surround sport and society.

In Rugby League specifically there has been a refresh of the Tackle It campaign which all persons subject to the Operational Rules must be aware of. PDRL and LDRL have gained massive media traction since the RLWC21 and derogatory comments towards people with a disability, particularly from such a high-profile player can have a damaging effect on the sport’s ability to attract people with disabilities to be involved within the sport.

Relating to the specific word used in this instance in research undertaken by Ofcom in 2016 stated that this word is one of the strongest words used to insult people with a disability. It is therefore not a sudden change that the use of such a word would not be known to be highly offensive. This is not a case of whereby we are stating Mr McGuire holds any particular views or questioning his character.

It is based purely on the words used by Mr McGuire that are a breach of Law 15.1 (f) of the On Field Sentencing Guidelines. Mr McGuire has brought the game of Rugby League into disrepute with his actions. Offences for this type of offence carry a minimum starting sanction of 6 match plus under the On Field Sentencing Guidelines.

The recent precedents for the use of Unacceptable Language in the professional game are Tony Clubb and Luke Collins. Both players admitted using Unacceptable Language. Clubb’s being based on nationality and Collins on homophobia. Mr Collins immediately booked and paid for himself going on an education course.

Both received an 8-match suspension. The aggravating features in this case are that this case is denied and that this is a highly offensive word to insult people with a disability.

The MRP submit that a strong message has to be sent out that such actions will simply not be tolerated and that a significant action is imposed on Mr McGuire.

Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

JM addressed the Tribunal and said he was staggered with the outcome. His image and reputation would be shattered due to the decision. He currently volunteers in the local community and would continue to do so.


KF confirmed that JM had worked with the club’s Foundation since his arrival in December. He was active in the local community and worked with schools and veterans. He added that JM has a disability himself and referenced other previous cases where he felt players received lesser suspension than the proposed Grade F charge which starts a 6-matches.

DP added that JM was adamant he has not said the word he had been accused of and that he has a disability himself.

Reasons for Decision:

Following submissions on behalf of the RFL and those on behalf of Mr Maguire the Tribunal considered the appropriate punishment. The Tribunal reminded itself that Mr McGuire did not receive additional punishment because he had pleaded Not Guilty. However, Mr McGuire would not receive the credit that he would have received had he admitted the charge.

The Tribunal took into account Mr McGuire’s previous good disciplinary record and his impressive work within the community which the Tribunal were pleased to hear he would continue.

The Tribunal adopted the reasoning of the RFL as to why the offence should be treated so seriously.

The Tribunal reached the conclusion that the minimum punishment which could be justified was a 7-match suspension and £1,000 fine. Mandatory education would be required.

Suspension:

7 matches