Where URU hit and missed in Heathens vs Kobs verdict

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to include statements by Uganda Rugby Union from as far back as 2015 relevant to this story.

Peter Odong had enjoyed a rather quiet term of office as Uganda Rugby Union (URU) Secretary from 2019 until now in his final year on the job. In just one year, URU has publically published fifteen statements, letters and press releases; all but two signed by Odong ranging from event postponements to disciplinary verdicts and dispute resolutions. These statements have been received with both applause and criticism.

The latest, published on Tuesday night, is the longest and most controversial thus far. A three-page document of 957 words containing the verdict on the dispute arising from the Nile Special Rugby Premier League match between Platinum Credit Heathens RFC and Kobs Rugby Club on April 1, 2023, at Kyadondo Rugby Club.

Here is what you could have missed in the statement and the detail and context of sections within the statement. I have also shared my opinion on different parts of the statement and resolutions.

Let’s start with the facts of the match, which are clear as daylight.

The match was tied at twelve-all in the last play when Kobs was penalised just inside their 22-metre territory in front of the poles for tackler not releasing the ball carrier. Heathens opted to kick for points and the kicking tee was brought onto the playing field. Kobs players protested the referee’s decision to award the penalty and sought an explanation, through their captain, from the referee. A scuffle involving fans from both teams ensued within and outside the playing field which resulted in a long stoppage in play. After the long stoppage, the match was resumed and then immediately concluded by the referee after awarding a penalty try to Heathens. The official final score was recorded as 19-12 in favour of the hosts. Heathens walked away with a bonus point victory and Kobs got the losing bonus point.

Kobs’ immediate action was to officially appeal the decision to award the penalty try and plead to have the match replayed at a later time. URU’s statement confirms saying: “We received an appeal from the aggrieved team (Kobs) to set aside the result on account of the call by the referee to award a penalty try and have the match replayed.”

URU’s immediate actions included holding and attending three separate meetings – an emergency meeting on the next day to check the facts and evidence at hand, Technical and Referee Council meetings to review the facts and evidence presented and to review the referee report and performance on the day after that. URU also wrote to Rugby Africa and World Rugby requesting clarity about the laws of the game relevant to the situation at hand.

Also, an independent panel of “knowledgeable rugby stalwarts” was constituted to decide whether the result should stand or the match be replayed.

These are the relevant laws that were quoted in the statement:

• Law 6.5a on the Duties of the Referee during a Match states that: “Within the playing enclosure, the referee is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match. The referee must apply the laws of the game fairly in every match.”
• Law 8.3 on the Penalty Try states that: “A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position. A player guilty of this must be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off. No conversion is attempted.”
• Law 9.7a on Unfair Play states that: “A player must not intentionally infringe any law of the game.” The sanction is a penalty.
• Law 9.27 on Misconduct states that: “A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship.” The sanction is a penalty.
• Law 20.12 on how the Opposing Team should conduct themselves at a Penalty or Free-kick states that: “When a penalty or free-kick is awarded, the opposing team must immediately retreat 10 metres towards their own goal line or until they have reached their goal line if that is closer.”
• Law 20.15 also on how the Opposing Team should conduct themselves at a Penalty or Free-kick states that: “The opposing team may not do anything to delay the kick or obstruct the kicker, including intentionally taking, throwing or kicking the ball out of reach of the team awarded the penalty.” The sanction for an infringement against this law is a “second penalty or free-kick” awarded to the non-infringing team “10 metres in front of the original mark. The second penalty or free-kick must not be taken before the referee has made the mark.”

The statement reads that all parties involved in the review unanimously found that the referee’s application of Law 8.3 was incorrect. Thus, Kobs’ appeal to cancel the award of the penalty try to Heathens was successfully upheld.

URU, noting that the incorrect decision was due to pressure on the match officials, has suspended the referee of the match for the rest of the league and “as remedial action, been sent for a course to further improve his decision making and law application.”

One important thing to note at this point is the conspicuous omission of the referee’s name. Although it is a known fact that the center referee for that match was 2022 Referee of The Year Ronald Wutimber, the statement does not explicitly state his name. But there are sixteen separate instances where the word “referee” is mentioned in the statement.

I wish to disagree with those alleging that Wutimber has been chosen as the sacrificial lamb and consequently thrown under the bus.

First, while federations are known to protect their match officials at all costs, it is not unusual for referees to be sent for refresher courses or programs after (mis)handling a match. Secondly, in Ugandan rugby’s special case, it was high time that URU and the Referee Association did something about the negative feedback on how their referees were officiating matches. Our referees, despite the many challenges they face to execute their duties, were not performing to the expected standard.

Wutimber’s is simply, and rather unfortunately, the straw that broke the camel’s back after some years of calm seas.

In 2015, referee Richard Akena was suspended following unsatisfactory management of a Uganda Cup semifinal match between Heathens and Black Pirates. Barely half a year later, after recurrent brawls involving players, team officials and match officials, URU vowed to punish any individual involved and/or caught breaking the sport’s code of conduct.

As I have always said, URU has seen worse days and they have survived. This is not the first time and will not be the last. Perhaps, now’s the time to formally set up a sanctions system for referees’ mismanagement of matches. And a rewards system too, for excellent management. Additionally, even heavier sanctions for any individual involved in breach of the expected behaviour during Ugandan rugby activities.

Moving on, the statement does not name and/or identify any of the individuals involved in the scuffle that hogged all the news reports from the match. However, URU says further action will be taken to investigate and bring to book all persons involved.

“World Rugby, Rugby Africa and Technical Committee note that actions on the field represent a breach of the World Rugby Playing Charter.”
Result – Match footage has been forwarded to Citing Commissioner for further action. The persons involved in disrupting the game (will) be investigated and sent to the appropriate committees for further action.”

URU’s statement reads in part.

In summary, we should expect to see more statements in the coming days.

Onto the section which has left many puzzled. After checking and reviewing the facts and evidence at hand, and seeking expert opinion from Rugby Africa and World Rugby, URU, through the independent committee constituted to resolve the matter, makes a key decision hinged on assumptions and probabilities.

Although the aforementioned penalty awarded to Heathens about twenty-two metres in front of the uprights in the last play of the match was within kickable range, there is no guarantee whatsoever that the penalty attempt would have been successful.

In saying that “they (Heathens) were likely to convert the penalty and win the game” and that “the Heathens had indicated that they were going to take the penalty as awarded and the penalty was in a position that was likely to be converted” and that “therefore, the Heathens were most likely going to win the game with 3 points,” URU goes severely wrong.

URU further contradicts themselves by saying, on one hand, that “the Committee acknowledges that a change of the game score by the match Referee awarding a penalty try was not backed by any law or tournament regulation” but on the other, recommending that “the match score/result should stand (at 19-12) as awarded by the referee.”

In my opinion, I think URU is trying not to set a precedent whereby teams run to the boardroom seeking to overturn decisions made on the pitch. Perhaps, where they redeem themselves, is by making it clear that they “don’t (wish to) interfere with the independence of the referee in managing a game.”

Thus, Kobs’ appeal to have the match replayed is denied. However, the committee is urged to invoke its power to withdraw Heathens’ bonus point.

This should send a message to all teams, all events being held fairly and within the laws of the game, to focus on things within their control. Winning a match can only be achieved on the pitch and not inside a boardroom, save for extremely extraordinary circumstances.

Consequently, from the verdict, Heathens stay top of the standings with 58 points, two ahead of Kobs in second place.

To conclude, given that URU found themselves in what they have called an “unprecedented scenario,” they were never going to satisfy all the parties involved and other stakeholders watching from the side. They were damned if they did, damned if they didn’t. They have hit, in equal measure as much as missing, the right notes to reach a verdict as they did.