THE HERALD REPORTS

KEVIN FERRIE December 09 2006

Sheriff Bill Dunlop must have felt his work as a rugby trouble-shooter was over after his working party ran the bad guys out of town when overhauling how the Scottish Rugby Union was run last year.
Yet for all that one amateur club player's suffering may seem far less important than the sport's governance, those who believe in justice will realise he has made another important intervention this week.
Dunlop was asked to chair the disciplinary panel re-considering the case of Justin McNab, a Caledonian District League player, whose 36-week ban for swearing at a referee shocked everyone with any sense of proportion.
Setting aside comparison with the relative leniency shown to those engaged in physical violence, what was utterly disgraceful was the procedural failure which resulted in McNab being denied the basic right of being allowed to defend himself.
There was, apparently, never the slightest possibility that he would ever have pled "not guilty" since he was severely reprimanded for his conduct by his own club's officials after the match in question. However, some of the evidence the Stobswell club prepared for Tuesday night's re-trial offered a very different perspective, not least in relation to the referee's behaviour ahead of issuing McNab his red card.
Taking mitigating factors into account Sheriff Dunlop and his fellow panelists not only slashed the sentence in half, but back-dated it, leaving McNab free to play again in February, six months earlier than the original decree.
Yet the behaviour of the SRU's disciplinary department remained shameful on releasing this latest news. Squeezed out late in the day – sadly now a customary method of trying to suppress bad news – the contrast with the announcement of the original sentence was striking.
There was an attempt to use McNab's case to political ends in citing his behaviour as intolerable and claiming they must make an example of him. This time it was clear that at least part of the judgment made was down to the disciplinary panel's failure to follow its own procedures. Yet when asked about that, the terse response was that there would be no elaboration on the very basic account of proceedings that had been issued by press release.
Within that account was reference to those hearing the re-trial finding: "That the referee's reasons for his decision to red card the player were correct. The Panel were further satisfied that the player's actions had amounted to a breach of IRB Laws 6.A.5 and 10.4(k)."
Clearly the sentence was reduced because of a combination of the evidence that should have been heard first time and the unfair way McNab had been treated.
While considerable improvements have been made in some quarters, as egos continue to be deemed more important than doing the right thing, the old-timers cling to their outdated ways, judicial lynchings and all.

This article was posted on 9-Dec-2006, 09:03 by Hugh Barrow.