EPCR SHORT JUDGMENT FORM

Match Argos Rugby Petrarca Vs Femi CZ Club’s Country Italy Competition European Rugby Continental Shield Date of match 12 January 2019 Match venue Argos Arena Padova Rules to apply EPCR Disciplinary Rules 2018/19

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

Player’s surname Acosta Date of birth 01 September 1992 Forename(s) Romulo Plea Admitted ☐ Not Admitted ☒ Club name Argos Rugby Petrarca SELECT: Red card ☐ Citing ☒ Other (specify) ☐ Offence 9.27 A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship including : Spitting at anyone

Summary of Sanction 8 weeks

HEARING DETAILS

Hearing date 16th January 2019 Hearing venue By Skype Conference Chairman/JO Jean Noel Couraud Panel member 1 Achille Reali Panel member 2 Julien Berenger Disciplinary Officer Liam McTiernan Appearance Player Yes ☒ No ☐ Appearance Club Yes ☒ No ☐

Player’s Representative(s): Other attendees: Giuseppe Artuso, Director Maria Gyolcsos: EPCR Corrado Covi, Director of sport Silvia Cameran

List of documents/materials provided to player in advance of hearing: 1 Notice of Hearing issued to the Player and Disciplinary Officer dated 12.01.2019 2 Citing Report, Gabriele Pezzano; 3 Referral to the Citing Commissioner from Rovigo; 4 Statement from the 4th Official, Andrea Spadoni; 5 Statement from Massimo Cioffi, alleged victim player 6 Statement from Jacobus Momberg, witnessing player; 7 Statement from Gianmarco Vian, witnessing player; 8 Translated excerpts of statements provided in Italian. 9 the video clip via link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j5XOcS_BNhO4L51ppp-JsMklsJGyER-7/view?usp=sharing 10 Fixture list Top 12. 11 Statement from Dott Carlo Andreoli. 12 List of previous Disciplinary Sanction for the Player. 13 Statement from Simone Ragusi, witnessing player. 14 Statement from Michele Lamaro, witnessing player. 15 Player response to Standing Directions. 16 The Disciplinary Officer's directions statement.

Disciplinary Decision page 1 sur 7

SUMMARY OF ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CITING/REFEREE’S REPORT/FOOTAGE

The Citing Report stated : “Sunday Jan,13 20169 I contacted the Rovigo team manager, Luca Gabban, to check for possible referrals. He submitted a video showing that something occurs after the end of the match between Petrarca n°1(Romulo Acosta) and Rovigo n°11 (Massimo Cioffi).In the victim statement the player CIOFFI says that ACOSTA spat in his face. Two teammates were witnesses of that event(..)”.

The statement of Massimo Cioffi alleged victim player reads as follows: “(..) After the final whistle, as we were talking to the referees and the players of the other team, I was in conversation with two ARGOS Padova players ( Ragusi et Lamaro) and as I turned round the player Romulo Acosta spat on my face without motivation”.

Gianmarco Vian ( Rovigo’s players) stated : “At the end of the match between Petrarca and Rovigo, played on 12..01.2019, we were in the corridor exchanging greetings and I was talking to a Padova player (Ragusi); I saw in front of me the player Romulo Acosta (Padova) spitting in the face of my team mate Massimo Cioffi without any motivation”.

Jacobus Momberg (Rovigo’s player) confirmed in his statement that Romulo Acosta “ (..)did a spitting action towards Massimo (..)”. The AR4 report of Andrea Spadoni in relation to the incident provided: “ At the end of the game I invited the referee and the two assistants to pay attention and be focused on what was going to happens. I know this kind of game very well and I was sure that something can occour. They positioned themselves on the opposite side of me (unusual position because they were keeping the shoulders to the public and stand) and they talked each other. Unfortunately I was unable to see the spitting from my position. I am quite sure that something happened because in one moment they started again to fight each other and a lot of players start to speak to me about this spitting. Rovigos players asked to me if I saw the incident and I said that no, I didn’t see the fact. I invited them to keep the calm”.

The video evidence showed: The match is over. The players of both teams are still on the pitch. Romulo Acosta and Massimo Cioffi pass each other. Romulo Acosta makes a movement with his head. Masssimo Cioffi immediately reacts and runs towards Romulo Acosta. He is pulled back by his team mate to avoid coming into contact with Romulo Acosta.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF OTHER EVIDENCE (e.g. medical reports)

There was no medical report.

Page 2 sur 7 Disciplinary Decision

SUMMARY OF PLAYER’S EVIDENCE

The club had provided responses to the pre-hearing direction for the Player. It was stated and submitted:

a. Romulo Acosta confirms he has been sued. b. He and the club is unable to attend the hearing in person in Paris tomorrow. We can’t manage to be in Paris tomorrow. c. Romulo Acosta firmly denies that he spat against the Rovigo athlete Massimo Cioffi. d. Romulo Acosta denies any acts of foul play e. Romulo Acosta denies any actions warranted a red card f. The statements of the Petrarca’s player Simone Ragusi which deny the Acosta spat against Massimo Cioffi. I’m waiting for Michele Lamaro’s statement as he’s training at and he’s not available in this moment.

Simone Ragusi stated: “I am very close to the happen of Romulo and I am sure he didn’t spit to Massimo Cioffi.”

Michele Lamaro stated: “I declare that the following information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. I agree that ARPC may use this witness statement for the purposes of any disciplinary investigation and/or disciplinary proceeding. Furthermore, that I will make myseif available in give evidence before a disciplinary panel either via telephone or in person as required.Today I was informed that Romulo Acosta, my teammate, has been cited for spitting on Rovigo's player Massimo Cioffi after Saturday's match. I witnessed both players' interaction after the match and all that happened was the following: After shaking hands with all the Petrarca's player Massimo Cioffi has celebrated his teams win in the direction of Petrarca players, Acosta attempted to tell him that the way he was celebrating was not professional nor was it respectful, and after that he turned around and went away without doing anything elle. Having been with Romulo Acosta throughout the interaction and indeed Ieaving with him, I can attest to the fact that I did not witness any spitting incident occurring”

The Player argued at the hearing:

1. He denied spitting on Massimo Cioffi and just said “shut up” to his opponent.

2. He submitted that the video does not show spit.

Page 3 sur 7 Disciplinary Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Disciplinary Committee is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Romulo Acosta committed an act of foul play which warranted a red card :

1- The video clip does not show Romulo Acosta talking to Massimo Cioffi; 2- The video Clip shows a fast movement of Romulo Acosta’s head compatible with spitting. 3- Romulo Acosta is unable to explain the reaction of Massimo Cioffi. 4- The statement of Gianmarco Vian just near Massimo Cioffi during the incident is particularly clear.

DECISION

Breach admitted ☐ Proven ☒ Not proven ☐ Other disposal (please state below) ☐ Romulo Acosta committed the act of Foul Play alleged in the Citing Complaint. This act warranted a red card.

SANCTIONING PROCESS

ASSESSMENT OF SERIOUSNESS

Assessment of Intent – R 7.8.32 (a)-(b) Intentional/deliberate ☒ Reckless ☐

State reasons It was an intentional and delibarate spitting. A spitting is intentional and in this case deliberate.

Gravity of player’s actions – R 7.8.32 (c) A spitting is an action against the good sportsmanship.

Nature of actions – R 7.8.32 (d) It was a spitting very probably in the face of Massimo Cioffi.

Existence of provocation – R 7.8.32 (e) There was no provocation.

Whether player retaliated – R 7.8.32 (f) No

Self-defence – R 7.8.32 (g) no

Page 4 sur 7 Disciplinary Decision

Effect on victim – R 7.8.32 (h) There was no effect. No injury.

Effect on match – R 7.8.32 (i) There was no effect on the match. The match was over.

Vulnerability of victim – R 7.8.32 (j) The victim was not vulnerable.

Level of participation/premeditation – R 7.8.32 (k) Romulo Acosta fully participated.

Conduct completed/attempted – R 7.8.32 (l) The conduct was completed.

Other features of player’s conduct – R 7.8.32 (m) No

ASSESSMENT OF SERIOUSNESS CONTINUED Entry point Top end* Weeks Mid-range 8 Weeks Low-end Weeks ☐ ☒ ☐

*If Top End, the JO or Panel should identify, if appropriate, an entry point between the Top End and the maximum sanction and provide the reasons for selecting this entry point, below.

In making this assessment, the JO/Committee should consider World Rugby Regulations 17.19.2(a), 17.19.2(h), and 17.19.2(i) or the equivalent provisions within the Tournament Rules referred to above.

Reasons for selecting Entry Point above Top End Not applicable

ADDITIONAL RELEVANT OFF-FIELD AGGRAVATING FACTORS

Player’s status as an offender of the Laws of the Game – R 7.8.34 (a) The disciplinary record was provided to the Disciplinary Committee.

Season 2014/2015: 58 days sanction in Pro 12 for striking.

Season 2015/2016 : One yellow card in “ Eccellenza “ Championship

Season 2016/2017 :One yellow card in “ Eccellenza “ Championship

Season 2017/2018 : 3 weeks sanction for dangerous tackle.

Page 5 sur 7 Disciplinary Decision

Need for deterrence – R 7.8.34 (b) No

Any other off-field aggravating factors – R 7.8.34 (c) none

Number of additional weeks: 1

RELEVANT OFF-FIELD MITIGATING FACTORS

Acknowledgement of guilt and timing – R 7.8.35(a) Player’s disciplinary record/good character – R7.8.35 (b) The Player denied The Player does not have a good disciplinary record

Youth and inexperience of player – R 7.8.35 (c) Conduct prior to and at hearing – R 7.8.35 (d) The Player is an experienced player. Good

Remorse and timing of remorse – R 7.8.35 (e) Other off-field mitigation – R 7.8.35 (f) No remorse The Player is involved in his club .He coaches the U 10 team.

Number of weeks deducted: 1

Summary of reason for number of weeks deducted: There is really only one mitigating factor

Page 6 sur 7 Disciplinary Decision

SANCTION

NOTE: PLAYERS ORDERED OFF ARE PROVISIONALLY SUSPENDED PENDING THE HEARING OF THEIR CASE, SUCH SUSPENSION SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN SANCTIONING – R 7.2.5

8 Weeks Total sanction Sending off sufficient ☐

Sanction commences At the conclusion of the hearing

Sanction concludes Midnight on Sunday 24 March 2019

Free to play Monday 25 March 2019

Signature (JO or Chairman) Jean Noel COURAUD Date 17th January 2019

NOTE: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF APPEAL AGAINST THIS DECISION AS SET OUT IN REGULATION 8.1 AND 8.2 OF THE EPCR DISCIPLINARY REGULATIONS. YOUR ATTENTION IS SPECIFICALLY DRAWN TO THE TIME LIMIT AND DIRECTIONS/REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO AN APPEAL SET OUT IN REGULATION 8.2.1 TO 8.2.4 OF THE REGULATIONS

Page 7 sur 7 Disciplinary Decision