Decision of Tournament Director in respect of a hearing of breach of the code of conduct by James Tindall.
The report
In the 40th minute of the match Great Britain v Canada Tindall (20) was crouched attempting to play the ball when he made contact with Short (13). Tindall stood and as a result lifted Short high in the air and threw him over his body landing on the ground (“the alleged behaviour”).
I determined that if proved the alleged behaviour would amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct, in particular clause 2(a)
Verbal/physical abuse or hostility towards any other participant, person or any other member of the public.
I therefore decided to hold a hearing into the alleged behaviour.
The case presented for Tindall at the hearing was
1. He did not run into a stationary opponent, he was attempting to tackle Short and won the ball.
2. His actions were not deliberate; it was a reaction to enable him to continue with the attack having won the ball.
3. As he had won the ball it was natural to stand and attempt to play it.
4. There was no malice in the action.
Decision
I have considered the evidence available. I am satisfied that the alleged behaviour occurred. I find that the behaviour constitutes a breach of clause 2(a) in that it constitutes physical abuse to another participant. In making that finding I have taken into account
1. Tindall was well able to stop once Short made contact with him.
2. Tindall’s actions when beyond an attempt to play the ball.
3. While I am not satisfied that Tindall deliberately intended to physically abuse Short his actions were reckless and had the potential to injure Short.
4. Tindall’s actions were inappropriate and physically hostile towards Short.
Penalty
This offence fits at level 1 of the Guidelines of Offences and Penalties “Inappropriate and deliberate physical contact between players in the course of play.”
The suggested penalty is “an official reprimand and/or a suspension of the individual for a minimum of one match”.
I have taken into account
1. The finding that the action was not deliberately designed to cause injury to Short,
2. There was no injury to Short,
3. Tindall was temporarily suspended by the umpire, and
4. Tindall’s attitude at the hearing was responsible and indicated respect for the Code of Conduct.
I consider that the appropriate penalty is one of a reprimand.
I note that in the match Netherlands v Great Britain Tindall received a yellow card. I have reviewed the video of that incident and do not consider that it warrants any additional action to the reprimand given.
Ken Read
Technical Delegate
17th August 2008
