Hugh Watkins banned and resigns

[Scarlet Al]

Thoughts?
He's not the first one to be banned in Wales this season for social media comments, and this isn't the longest ban either.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/22207141

Referee Hugh Watkins banned for 12 weeks after Twitter comment

A rugby referee of 20 years says he is "astonished and disappointed" after being banned for 12 weeks for a comment he made on Twitter.
Hugh Watkins questioned a referee's decision not to show a red card for a dangerous tackle in the Hong Kong Sevens final between Wales and Fiji.
He resigned immediately after being told by the Welsh Rugby Union that he faced disciplinary action.
"It does leave a bitter taste in my mouth at how it's all ended," he said.
The WRU says Watkins, 49, breached the code of conduct for referees which prohibits any public criticism of fellow match officials.
A disciplinary hearing was held in his absence on 9 April where he was found guilty and banned.

WRU Code of Conduct for match officials
Reg 3.1: A match official shall not make any public criticism in any medium (including via social networking websites) of any Club or any match official, team manager, Club official or Player or any other Person.

"Mr Watkins resigned before the case was heard and indicated he did not wish to attend the panel," said a WRU spokesperson.
"In his absence the case was proven and he was suspended from all match official activities for a period of 12 weeks."
While watching Wales play Fiji, Watkins posted a comment on Twitter when Fiji's Ilai Tinai was yellow-carded for a tip-tackle on Lee Williams in the first half - an offence normally punished by a red card.
He wrote: "Sorry that's a shocker. Had to be red no other option. We need referees to be consistent in this."
On reflection, Watkins says he regrets making the comment but stressed that the 12-week ban is totally disproportionate, particularly in light of Jerome Fillol's recent 14-week ban for spitting in the face of Peter Stringer.
"He's had 14 weeks for spitting in someone's face, I've had 12 for a little comment. There doesn't seem to be consistency," he said.
Watkins, who officiated in the 2007 Rugby World Cup and in the Celtic League, added he is saddened that his long referring career has ended in such a manner and felt he deserved better treatment from the WRU.
"I've had no letter of thanks for 20 years' service," he said.
"Having given 20 years of service to the Welsh Rugby Union, eight of those as a professional, I just thought that this could have been handled far better.
"I still feel the comment wasn't hugely critical, it was just my feelings."

 

[Womble]

Thats this site finished then, :shrug:

 

[Pinky]

And SA Rugby Referees too. That's a silly rule by the WRU, unless it applies only when a ref is actually acting as an official. So was HW officiating at the HK 7s final? If not, then he is a spectator and is not commenting as a match official.

 

[Scarlet Al]

He was a spectator.

 

[Taff]

Thats this site finished then, :shrug:

He wrote: "Sorry that's a shocker. Had to be red no other option. We need referees to be consistent in this."

 

[menace]

Watkins, who officiated in the 2007 Rugby World Cup and in the Celtic League, added he is saddened that his long referring career has ended in such a manner and felt he deserved better treatment from the WRU.
"I've had no letter of thanks for 20 years' service," he said.

Ok - thanks for referring all those things you referred? epper: (bloody journalists who can't check their work!)

BTW...stupid penalty. Just went chasing for my association rules to see if I have to disable my userid on this site. *gulp*!

Taff- I don't understand the point of your post in response to Wombles comment? Womble was suggesting that this site is at an end as many of us are guilty of criticising referees on this very public medium.

 

[Taff]

... Taff- I don't understand the point of your post in response to Wombles comment? Womble was suggesting that this site is at an end as many of us are guilty of criticising referees on this very public medium.

My point was that if that's all that was said (and which got him a ban) it seemed pretty inoccuous. The only bit the authorities could object to were the first 2 sentences - after all we all want referees to be consistent, so that sentence can't be controversial.

As to the first 2 sentences .... we've probably all heard worse in private said about controversial incidents / mistakes. Could this site be classed as "private"? Perhaps discussions regarding actual real life incidents should automatically be in the "Referees Only" section to make it as private as possible?

I know this was a WRU matter, but I'd be surprised if other Unions didn't have a similar rule.

 

[Davet]

This site is public - you can read all the posts without logging in.

And the WRU (and any other Unions who do the same) should be ashamed of their attitude, and their denial of free speech and fair comment. The attitude stinks of fear on their part, and is wholly at odds with the current tide of supporting whistle blowers.

Shame on them.

 

[Dixie]

This site is public - you can read all the posts without logging in.

I don't think that's true of the Referees Only section - Chopper15 used to moan that we all went on there to exclude him from the interesting discussions

And the WRU (and any other Unions who do the same) should be ashamed of their attitude, and their denial of free speech and fair comment. The attitude stinks of fear on their part, and is wholly at odds with the current tide of supporting whistle blowers.

Shame on them.

I broadly share this sentiment in most fields of human endeavour - but I'm pretty sure that there are swathes of key jobs where such restrictions justifiably apply. One doesn't hear of judges criticising the decisions of other judges - to do so would be to undermine public confidence in an institution that is key to the proper functioning of society. I imagine the police in many countries are similarly constrained. While I don't equate refereeing with either of those key public sector roles, I can well imagine that those tasked with upholding the authority of referees across the game consider it a bad idea to have the refereeing cadre criticising each other's decisions in public.

 

[Mat 04]

This site is public - you can read all the posts without logging in.

And the WRU (and any other Unions who do the same) should be ashamed of their attitude, and their denial of free speech and fair comment. The attitude stinks of fear on their part, and is wholly at odds with the current tide of supporting whistle blowers.

Shame on them.

Its worth pointing out that the same rule applies to players, coaches and advisors. It has been controversial recently amongst referees though.

 

[Taff]

This site is public - you can read all the posts without logging in.

I don't think that's true of the Referees Only section - Chopper15 used to moan that we all went on there to exclude him from the interesting discussions.

But that's just my point gents.

There are some sections of this site which are very public - anybody can see it, and it isn't a problem. Equally there is a section where only registered Referees can see (Chopper was a perfect example, as he couldn't see what was discussed) which is surely the best place to discuss anything controversial which could be a problem. Now some threads will start off in the wrong section, but what I'm suggesting is that if / when actual real life incidents / mistakes are discussed (and how are we to learn from mistakes if we can't discuss them?) a Moderator should move them to the Referees only section.

 

[uncle fester]

Was this the first time Watkins had made comments like this?

Seems very draconian.

- - - Updated - - -

Thoughts?
He's not the first one to be banned in Wales this season for social media comments, and this isn't the longest ban either.

Any links that I could read about the others? Were they pro-level games, etc?

 

[Dixie]

fyi, I just found this in my company's policies & procedures section (reproduced here in severely truncated form and slightly redacted):

UK Social Media Policy

This policy does not form part of your contract of employment with the company and may be amended from time to time.

Scope and Purpose of the Policy

This policy deals with the use of all forms of social media, including but not limited to Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Wikipedia, all other social networking sites and all other internet postings, including blogs, forums, discussion boards, photo or video sharing sites and online comments. It also covers company provided collaboration tools ... It applies to the use of social media for both business and personal purposes, whether during office hours or otherwise. The policy applies regardless of whether the social media is accessed using the company’s IT facilities and equipment or your own equipment.

Breach of this policy may result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal in line with the UK Disciplinary Policy. If you are suspected of committing a breach of this policy you will be required to co-operate with any investigation, which may involve providing access to relevant accounts. You may also be required to remove internet postings which are deemed to constitute a breach of this policy. Failure to comply with such a request may in itself result in disciplinary action.

What to do

The company carefully manages the use of its brand to ensure its continuing reputation for quality and compliance. You should never use the brand online without permission. You should also ensure that you do not make any disparaging, defamatory or false statements about the company, your colleagues, customers or other stakeholders.

Be respectful of others: Do not post anything related to your colleagues or our customers, clients, business partners, suppliers, vendors or other stakeholders without their permission

Lawyers will note with a wry smile the assertion that while the policy does not form part of the contract of employment, failure to comply with it may nonetheless result in termination of that contract.

 

[Toby Warren]

fyi, I just found this in my company's policies & procedures section (reproduced here in severely truncated form and slightly redacted):

UK Social Media Policy

This policy does not form part of your contract of employment with the company and may be amended from time to time.

Scope and Purpose of the Policy

This policy deals with the use of all forms of social media, including but not limited to Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Wikipedia, all other social networking sites and all other internet postings, including blogs, forums, discussion boards, photo or video sharing sites and online comments. It also covers company provided collaboration tools ... It applies to the use of social media for both business and personal purposes, whether during office hours or otherwise. The policy applies regardless of whether the social media is accessed using the company’s IT facilities and equipment or your own equipment.

Breach of this policy may result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal in line with the UK Disciplinary Policy. If you are suspected of committing a breach of this policy you will be required to co-operate with any investigation, which may involve providing access to relevant accounts. You may also be required to remove internet postings which are deemed to constitute a breach of this policy. Failure to comply with such a request may in itself result in disciplinary action.

What to do

The company carefully manages the use of its brand to ensure its continuing reputation for quality and compliance. You should never use the brand online without permission. You should also ensure that you do not make any disparaging, defamatory or false statements about the company, your colleagues, customers or other stakeholders.

Be respectful of others: Do not post anything related to your colleagues or our customers, clients, business partners, suppliers, vendors or other stakeholders without their permission

Lawyers will note with a wry smile the assertion that while the policy does not form part of the contract of employment, failure to comply with it may nonetheless result in termination of that contract.

Perfectly normal. Many things are non-contractual yet enforceable, it enables them to be changed quicker and bypass contractual change obligations.

 

[matty1194]

Its worth pointing out that the same rule applies to players, coaches and advisors. It has been controversial recently amongst referees though.

Lets see if the WRU are so heavy handed towards a key player of the national team, Wales prop Adam Jones has come out in support of Hugh Watkins and publicly slated the WRU., taken from BBC website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/22215569

And the following is a cut from the Players code of conduct.
The Codes of Conduct and the Protocol for the Game are as follows:-
Code of Conduct for Players

4. A player shall not publish or cause to be published criticism of the manner in which the Disciplinary Panel handled or resolved any dispute or disciplinary matter arising from a breach of the Bye Laws, Regulations or Laws of the Game.

And if you look at the support that Hugh is getting on his Twitter page from both current and former players and officials,I think personally the WRU have made a massive boo boo, a slap on the wrists could of sorted this issue out quite easily.

 

[Daftmedic]

WOW:wtf:

 

[crossref]

The RFU, and all the other unions, have plenty of referees who can all join the Ref only section, and monitor what is said.

If they want to.

 

[Bryan]

Thats this site finished then, :shrug:

Yeah, all those companies that make leggings are going to come after us pretty hard.

I broadly share this sentiment in most fields of human endeavour - but I'm pretty sure that there are swathes of key jobs where such restrictions justifiably apply. One doesn't hear of judges criticising the decisions of other judges - to do so would be to undermine public confidence in an institution that is key to the proper functioning of society. I imagine the police in many countries are similarly constrained.

IIRC there is generally a dissident ruling whenever the US Supreme Court comes out with a vote (typically 5-4) on a controversial issue.

While I don't equate refereeing with either of those key public sector roles, I can well imagine that those tasked with upholding the authority of referees across the game consider it a bad idea to have the refereeing cadre criticising each other's decisions in public.

There's a time and a place for criticism. In this case the time/place was poorly chosen.

 

[Taff]

The RFU, and all the other unions, have plenty of referees who can all join the Ref only section, and monitor what is said. If they want to.

Correct, but what is typed in the "Referee Only" section is in effect the same as would be said in a monthly referees meeting - and not for Joe Public to dig through.

Twitter is far far more public than a referees forum.

 

[tim White]

Perhaps this is a perfect time for a certain National body to discuss Context and Materiality regarding the posting of a tweet.