For those that don't know the full story, it is reproduced below. The summary is that on appeal to the RFU, at a hearing held on Monday 10th November, forfeiture of the game stands resulting in a 4 point deduction. There is no further right of appeal.

The rationale for the decision is that the regulations are clear that if a game includes uncontested scrums because one side is unable to bring on a front row capable replacement player when first required to do so, that side will forfeit the game. No discretion; no mitigation; game is forfeit and the non-offending side is awarded the game as if they had won with a bonus point try.

Accordingly, we lose the 4 points previously awarded for the win and Havant are awarded the full 5 points.

___________________________________________________________________

The full version...
As required by the playing regulations, we duly named four front row players in our match squad for the game against Havant. Unfortunately one of our front row players was injured in the pre-match warm up. When, during the second half of the game, one of our props was yellow carded and we needed to bring on a replacement front row player, we were unable to do so; the game continued with uncontested scrums and we won by 20 points to 19.

Havant protested saying that we were in breach of the playing regulations and the League Secretary upheld their view. As a result, Sidcup were to forfeit the match - a deduction of 4 league points previously awarded for the win (with the match awarded to Havant as a full 5 point win) - plus a penalty of 5 league points for not being able to field a replacement front row player when first required to do so. A total deduction of 9 league points.

Needless to say, we appealed the decision on the basis that the injury to our front row player occurred after we had declared the match squad to the referee and that the pre-match warm up should be considered part of the match. We also questioned the implication that in order to avoid a recurrence of these penalties if the same set of events were to happen again, we would need to name a fifth front row player in the match squad or at least have one on stand-by. As having more front row players involved at first team level would mean less being available at lower levels thus potentially limiting development of the game, we argued this interpretation is contrary to RFUR 13.1.5 which requires all decisions to be made in the interests of the game of rugby union football.

The appeal panel has concluded that the playing regulations (IRB law 5.1) stipulate that 'a match will be 80 minutes plus injury time where necessary' and thus cannot include the pre-match warm up. On that basis they have concluded we were in breach of the playing regulations and as the regulations do not provide for any discretion on the part of the Organising Committee on this specific point, we forfeit the match and thus lose the 4 points previously awarded for the win. They also considered our argument that the original decision could become a limiting factor in the development of the game but they dismissed this argument concluding that the regulations strike a balance between the requisite number of front row forwards and maintaining the fabric and complexion of the game.

However, the panel did have some sympathy with the unusual injury and have reduced the 5 point penalty to a 2 point penalty suspended for the remainder of the season and only to be imposed if there is a further breach of RFUR 13.5.

On further appeal to the RFU, a hearing was convened at a Central London hotel at which an RFU appointed, three-person panel (comprising an ex-President of the RFU, an independent solicitor and an independent barrister) presided over proceedings. The proceedings were very formal with arguments and representation put by both Sidcup RFC as appellant and the Divisional Organising Committee who had imposed the sanction. The Secretary of Havant RFC was present to observe proceedings.

The panel considered all points put to them and concluded as follows:

1. Nothing they had heard persuaded them to overturn the forfeiture of the match as required by RFU Regulation 13 Appendix 2, paragraph 14 “If a league match is completed or contains uncontested scrums and a Club has failed to comply with the requirement in paragraph 12(a) to replace a front row Player on the first and second occasions (first occasion only at Level 5 and below) with another suitably trained and experienced front row Player, that Club that shall forfeit the match which will be awarded to the other team who shall be deemed to have won by four tries.)”

2. The panel though were not comfortable with the imposition of the suspended 2 point penalty. In the Divisional Organising Committee’s decision they had imposed the 2 point suspended penalty because of “the aggravating factor that the breach was caused by the referee yellow carding the Sidcup tight head for persistent infringement.” The panel felt the Divisional Organising Committee should not be imposing a sanction for an on the field incident. This sanction was removed.

3. The panel noted but declined to take any further action in relation to our failure to notify Havant when the match card was changed (albeit the changes were made before the game and with full knowledge and consent of the referee). The panel commented that it’s our obligation, indeed every club’s obligation, to know and comply with the regulations.