Ineligible: Tyson Keats
Related links
Teams
Also see
London Welsh have had five league points deducted, a further five-point deduction suspended until the end of season 2013-14 and been fined £15,000 after being found to have fielded an ineligible player in the Aviva Premiership this season.
The player, Tyson Keats, appeared in 10 matches whilst not holding Effective Registration with the Rugby Football Union.
The case was heard by an RFU Premiership Regulations Panel of Inquiry consisting of Jeremy Summers (chairman), Mark McCafferty and Peter Budge.
London Welsh have 14 days in which to appeal against the decision.
"This was an extraordinary case and one that it is hoped will never be repeated," said Mr Summers.
"The sanction imposed was structured to reflect the seriousness of the matter, which included conduct that was dealt with by the police, but also to import a rugby-based proportionality to the overall position that took into account the wider interests of the game."
London Welsh have confirmed that they will appeal the ruling.
"London Welsh RFC are extremely disappointed with the decision to deduct the club ten league points, five of them suspended until the end of season 2013-14, and to fine it £15,000, in regard to the charge that the club fielded an ineligible player, Tyson Keats, in the Aviva Premiership this season.
"The case was heard by an RFU Premiership Regulations Panel of Inquiry consisting of Jeremy Summers (chairman), Mark McCafferty and Peter Budge.
"London Welsh can confirm that it will be lodging an appeal against the ruling.
"The club was unknowingly the victim of one individual's fraudulent conduct and it was London Welsh which discovered the fraud and brought it to the attention of the RFU. The Panel however has punished London Welsh on the basis that it is to blame for what that individual has done.
"London Welsh are hugely disappointed and shocked by the ruling made by the RFU Hearings Committee, which we believe is extremely harsh under the circumstances," said London Welsh CEO Tony Copsey.
"It is our belief the ruling is fundamentally flawed and I can confirm that the club will definitely be appealing the decision."
Comments
LondonWasp says...
i bet Sale is over the moon about this news
Posted 17:45 08th March 2013
LondonWasp says...
i bet Sale is over the moon about this news
Posted 17:45 08th March 2013
ArmchairGeneral says...
@TVand @Dan: don't think we will agree. But my view is the fine covers falsified papers etc. The naughtiness. The points deduction should be purely about fairness, to undo what they have gained from it. If more than that you punish innocents. Therefore it is not by the by how well they have done from it. It is critical to the rectification calculation and to putting things right as accurately and as fairly as possible.
Posted 14:10 08th March 2013
jamesliveinhope says...
Feel for Welsh but understand the RFU position.
If I woke up to find £100 more an my bank that I expected and promptly spent it, could I argue that I shouldn't have to pay it back to its rightful owner because it wasn't my fault that it was put into my account?
Welsh's argument can only relate to the fine, if they are perceived to have gained a points advantage through Scott's misdemeanour then those points should be taken away because, ultimately, Sale or Irish, who have not broken any rules, could ultimately be the losers as a result.
And lets not forget, this wasn't a registration cock-up where a name was misspelt or the form was sent with insufficient postage - the guy was not allowed to play and an individual fraudulently tried to cover it up.
Perhaps the bigger question is why Scott went to such lengths to get the guy on the field. Was there money involved?
Posted 08:58 08th March 2013
Waz4before says...
It's alwatys a shame when off filed antics affect what hard-working players have achieved on filed; however I have no doubt Welsh will take this to the courts and probably win; they are a club without morals or scruples and this was a deliberate deception and falsification of paperwork and yes, it will be a shame if it ends up being this 5 point deduction that seals their fate but at the end of the day what they did was deliberate fraud, lacked any form of corporate governance from the same people now squealing like stuck pigs at the "injustice" who were conveniently absent when the deed was done. They should not be allowed off the hook by their "old boys network" in the legal system either! I'm not a fan of LW mind you (can you tell?) abandoning home for Oxford was a disgrace in the first place and I think its time Welsh went down, went home, and think again about what their club really is and what it means to their supporters!
Posted 05:33 08th March 2013
GoWalesGo says...
I can't believe that anyone thinks this is harsh or a conspiracy to get rid of them.
They messed up and now they have to pay for it, that's life FFS.
Posted 03:37 08th March 2013
TVaddict says...
@ArmchairGeneral
Nahh, I disagree, I think this is spot on. When falsified passports have been used they're lucky it's only a sporting matter and not a police matter. It's not just about how it affected the game, it's the fact they lied to the officials. That kind of activity can't be seen to go unpunished or even lientiently punished. If they'd all have know I would have backed a 10 or even 20 point punishment, however since it was just one man they deserve a reduced sentence. Hopefully Mike Scott will get a ban from the game for a few years.
Posted 01:11 08th March 2013
LondonWasp says...
i will be annoyed if this means that they will go down instead of Sale, who have been at the bottom all season...
Posted 00:44 08th March 2013
Dezz says...
Gutted for Welsh. ERU never wanted them up in the first place and they can afford to lose another Southern club but not a Northern club such as Sale, what with Newcastle and Leeds already down in the Championship. Even if they managed to beat the drop would their 5 points which have been suspended suddenly be reapplied?
Posted 00:16 08th March 2013
Danatthecorner says...
@ArmchairGeneral - Whether they won games with him playing or not is by the by (although they did win 3 I believe), he wasn't eligible to play. Its unfortunate that one disgraceful individual (Scott)has cost the club so much but it was a deliberate and flagrant rule break and the chief executive crying ignorance is not a defence for me.
On the one hand Welsh deserve the right to play to stay up based on their performances so far. On the other hand they beat Sale and London Irish with Keats playing illegally, their relegation rivals. Is it fair on them? They beat Exeter Chiefs in a result that could cost them Heineken Cup rugby, is it fair on them?
In previous cases of unregistered players, Leicester and Sale I believe both fielded a guy they had sent on loan and failed to re-register in time. Each time it was a genuine error and they were docked a point and 2 points respectively I think so the precedent is there and it is valid. A 5 point ban based on just how long this went on; but also taking into account the certain degree of innocence of many at the club, as well as the need for relegation to be decided on the field is about right.
Posted 23:33 07th March 2013
nabberuk says...
@Jediboy
Have a read about what went on, you'll see that theres nothing harsh about it!
http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/judgements/judgments-2012-2013/judgments-by-club/aviva-premiership/~/media/files/2013/discipline/judgments/aviva%20premiership/london%20welsh.ashx
Posted 22:39 07th March 2013
ArmchairGeneral says...
To the formulas you add variance percentages for factors such as intent, track record. And you lose variance favor on recurring crimes etc. judges just review the result incase there is a factor not covered that needs consideration but as far as possible decide the formula beforehand and then fill in the form and crunch the numbers. Any volunteers to prepare rugby law algorithms online for public use that can out perform our supreme decision makers? Public input on creating the formulas... A questionnaire on the crime to be filled in and out pops the judgement.
Posted 21:36 07th March 2013
ArmchairGeneral says...
My calculation makes it a harsher crime if the team is winning, because it is messing up the Aviva more and benefitting the offending club more. A fixed points deduction rather than a method of calculation means punishments, as always, miss the crime. Why can't world rugby give us formulas based on attempts at calculating the damage of the crime instead of random numbers for offences that are harsh or lenient according to opinion only.!!! Makes me mad. Not saying I have the right formula but in 2 minutes I tried which is more than we see from these shocking ruling bodies.
Posted 21:27 07th March 2013
ArmchairGeneral says...
TVAdict: I don't think it can be called lenient. How many wins did he participate in? Divide all the points from the games he played by 15 to make it one players contribution. Round up the result to nearest whole number. And deduct that. I would guess that would be 1 point. Double it if you like. but no more. The fine covers the legal issue. The points deductions is to cover the unfair advantage it has given Welsh. I'm the first guy to want Welsh to go down but only if they deserve it. Fairness is everything: the punishment must fit the crime. It does not here.
Posted 21:12 07th March 2013
honestpom says...
Great shame when you think how well they have performed this year, i did not think they would win a single game. 5 points sounds ( and is ) a lot when you are towards the bottom of the table but then if someone at the top were deducted 5 points ( maybe someone for breaking rules on the salary cap ? ) it would not seem so much. At the end of the day i don't think the punishment is unduly harsh and the London Welsh still have a chance of staying up. Shame everyones hard work is undermined by one ( non-playing member of staff ) persons incompetance and / or dishonesty.
Posted 21:04 07th March 2013
Jediboy says...
I see your point fellas. There was a lot of games. But it does seem to be a genuine (silly) mistake, and they raised the matter. This suggests there was no intent and they tried to sort it.
But I do see where you're coming from.
Posted 20:56 07th March 2013
TVaddict says...
@Jediboy
It's actually an incredibly lenient sentence. I think usually it's around 1-2 points per game deducted, so they should have lost 10-20 points! Now that would have been a problem!
Posted 20:31 07th March 2013
nabberuk says...
@Jediboy
There havent been any where the player has played 10 games.
Posted 20:30 07th March 2013
Jediboy says...
That's a massive blow to Welsh, and it seems a bit harsh, especially when compared with similar misdemeanors.
Posted 19:12 07th March 2013
sirtidychris says...
Feel bad for Tyson Keats, walking into that dressing room is going to be awkward...appreciate its not his fault but it may prove to be the end of London Welsh in the premiership, and can you see them coming up again ?!
Posted 19:04 07th March 2013