Williams ban based on unseen footage

PREVIOUSLY UNSEEN footage of the incident involving Tom Williams during Harlequins’ Heineken Cup quarter-final against Leinster at The Stoop is believed to have been central to the ruling by an independent disciplinary committee whose findings saw the player handed a 12-month ban and the club fined €250,000, 50 per cent of which will be suspended for two years.

Sky Sports broadcast the match live and while replays of the incident at the time showed nothing more incriminating than William’s inane wink and circumstantial evidence, ERC gathered all footage and made it available to the disciplinary committee of Robert HP Williams (chairman), Pat Barriscale and Dr Stuart Reary.

Having reviewed all the footage and heard evidence from the player, the club and ERC, who prosecuted the case, the disciplinary committee made a ruling based on the balance of probability. Harlequins, who expressed their dismay at the outcome, await the written documents before deciding whether to appeal.

Damian Hopley, chief executive of the Professional Rugby Players Association (PRA), condemned Williams’ suspension as “extraordinary” and “entirely disproportionate”. He questioned the severity of the award when taken against recent cases involving Schalk Burger and Justin Harrison. Hopley continued: “In recent weeks we have seen players found guilty of eye-gouging receiving bans of between eight and 12 weeks, and another player found guilty of misconduct receive an eight-month ban. For Tom Williams to be singled out and handed a 12-month ban is both excessive and entirely disproportionate.”

Williams is the Harlequins player representative with the PRA and Hopley believes his previous good character was not taken into account by the panel, who reached their decision after a three-day hearing. “Tom Williams is a player of unquestionable character. His performances for Harlequins demonstrate an excellent work ethic, and his disciplinary record – one yellow card following persistent team infringements in seven years as a professional player – speaks for itself.

“Tom is held in high regard by his team-mates and peers, and as the players’ representative for Harlequins he has shown himself to be extremely conscientious . . . no mention or account seems to have been made of Tom’s good character and disciplinary record in mitigation against the charge or the length of the ban. The PRA looks forward to receiving copies of the judgement and then taking appropriate action.”

Hopley’s defence of Williams at no point addresses the fact the player was found guilty but dwells on the severity of the sentence.

The International Rugby Board (IRB) is understood to have been pleased with the committee’s judgment. An IRB spokesman said: “It is a strong deterrent. There is no room in the game for cheating.”

On the issue of whether faking an injury could be considered substantially worse than Burger’s offence, the IRB reiterated they are investigating their disciplinary process for eye-gouging.

The former Ireland prop, Paul Wallace, who was working as an analyst for Sky television, was adamant Harlequins had bent the rules. “I saw Tom Williams kneel down and move his hand from his sock to his mouth before he came off,” he said. “To my mind, this is a clear case as there did not appear to be contact between Williams and anyone else. I am not qualified to know about things such as vegetable dye, but it didn’t look like the colour of blood you get from a mouth injury. There was a little trickle, then it gushed out after he took a sip of water.”