Appeal Ruling: Olds College Soccer-Wolff

2018-19 Season

September 19, 2018

Background summary:

• Olds College Athletic Director Linda Henderson filed an appeal with the ACAC on September 6/18 in response to ACAC Commissioner Hendsbee’s September 5/18 Ruling assessing a four-game suspension to Olds College Men’s Soccer player Ryan Wolff.

• Mr. Wolff was assessed a Red Card by the referee who officiated the August 26/18 non-conference ACAC soccer game at Red Deer involving the Olds College Broncos vs Augustana Vikings. According to the referee, Mr. Wolff was ejected for ‘Violent Conduct’ against Augustana player Travis Dolter.

• Commissioner Hendsbee’s ruling referenced unsolicited letters written by Mr. Dolter’s father and an Augustana teammate of Dolter’s, which were sent to Hendsbee by Augustana Athletic Director Greg Ryan. The letters provided not only descriptions of the on-field incident, but they went on explain Mr. Dolter’s subsequent post-game injuries which allegedly resulted from the violent conduct incident.

• Hendsbee’s assessment of the 4-game suspension was pursuant to OC Article I, Section, 12, 9.5.3.1 in the ACAC Soccer Technical rules indicating the consequence for a Red Card judged by the referee to be ‘Violent Conduct’.

• Olds College has raised concerns about the process, timing and communication of both the assessment of the Red Card by the official on the field and the subsequent ruling by the Commissioner. Olds College was never contacted nor invited to contribute before the Commissioner ruled on the Referee’s report however Augustana representatives purportedly influenced the final outcome.

• An ACAC Ad Hoc Appeal Review Committee unanimously agreed on September 12/18 to accept that - c) Making a decision that was influenced by bias (OC Article III, Section 4, 6.) - constituted acceptable Grounds of Appeal for the Appeal to move forward for a ruling by an ACAC Appeal Tribunal.

Appeal Tribunal Hearing:

• The Appeal Panel Tribunal consisted of Jordan Richey (Chair), Nathan Ruff and Todd Caughlin. Mark Kosak continued in the role of Case Manager from Step 1 to Step 2 in the Appeal Process.

• The Appeal Hearing was conducted by WebEx video conference on Tuesday September 18, 2018.

• Appellant Linda Henderson from Olds College was provided the opportunity to present the Olds College Appeal of the Commissioner’s ruling and to answer questions from the Appeal Tribunal. No other witnesses or respondents were involved. Commissioner Bill Hendsbee was not invited to participate, and the Appeal Tribunal determined that his participation was not necessary to proceed with the Hearing.

The role of the Appeal Panel Tribunal, as described in OC Article III, Section 4, is as follows:

10. Appeal Decision

10.1. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Appeal Panel will, within the appropriate timeline, issue a written decision with reasons. The Appeal Panel may decide:

a) To reject the appeal and confirm the decision being appealed; or

b) To uphold the appeal and refer the matter back to the initial decision-maker for a new decision; or

c) To uphold the appeal and vary the decision should it find that an error occurred, and such error cannot be corrected by the original decision-maker for reason of lack of clear procedures, lack of time, or lack of neutrality;

d) To determine whether costs of the appeal, excluding legal fees and legal disbursements of any parties, will be assessed against any party. In assessing costs, the Appeal Panel will consider the outcome of the appeal, the conduct of the parties and their respective financial resources.

Rationale:

• The Appeal Panel acknowledged Olds College’s assertion that there were a number of flaws and anomalies in the process of delivering a final ruling about the incident which resulted in Mr. Wolff’s Red Card. The game was played without the full compliment of officials and neither an official ACAC Game Sheet nor an ACAC Officials Report was provided at the field by host Red Deer College for the referee to report the incident. As a result, the OC coaching staff did not leave the field with a report as the Referee completed and submitted an on-line Alberta Soccer Association Misconduct Report the following day to the ACAC office.

• While the Commissioner did not request any additional evidence or supporting documentation, he did receive and accept two unsolicited letters from Augustana Athletic Director Greg Ryan. The letters were referenced in the Commissioner’s final ruling which resulted in the 4-game suspension.

• Contrary to the Commissioner’s customary process of presenting an opportunity for both parties on either side of an issue to present evidence or input, Mr. Hendsbee did not invite input from Olds College before the final ruling was circulated. While the Commissioner strictly adheres to principles of fairness and due process, there were several mitigating factors that may have impacted the lead-up to this particular ruling. The letters provided by Augustana were submitted without request so Commissioner Hendsbee did not actively seek input from either institution involved. Furthermore, a perception of urgency to circulate a ruling may have been evident due to the unforeseen time lapse between the date of the incident and the time it took for ACAC staff to receive and send the Referee’s report/request to the Commissioner for deliberation. It was a pre-season non-conference event and normal regular season timelines were not observed. The Labour Day long weekend and the impending start of a new ACAC soccer season likely also influenced the air of urgency to release a ruling for what appeared to be a routine red card incident, despite the serious nature of the events.

Recommendations:

• The Appeal Tribunal reminds all ACAC members of adherence to the following policies/practices: - Official ACAC Game Sheets and Referee’s Reports must be provided at non-conference competitions to ensure that regular ACAC post-game reporting protocols are observed. This is particularly important when an incident of misconduct occurs. Furthermore, host institutions are encouraged to supply the requisite number of game officials in non-conference competitions. - ACAC members are to avoid supplying the Commissioner or any other decision-maker with additional unsolicited information about an incident under investigation until requested to do so. Accordingly, ACAC members are expected to follow ACAC process when submitting a Request for Supplementary Ruling (Article II, Section 3, 1.2) which must be accompanied by the corresponding fee.

• Olds College will heretofore be refunded their $500 Appeal deposit.

This ruling will be circulated to the ACAC Conference Council 3 days after presentation to the appellant.
Please direct any comments, questions or concerns to the Case Manager.

September 12, 2018

Ad Hoc Appeal Review Committee decision - Determining if the Olds College Appeal of the Ryan Wolff Disciplinary Ruling by ACAC Commissioner satisfies one or more Grounds for Appeal

Background:

Olds College Athletic Director Linda Henderson filed an appeal with the ACAC office on September 6/18 in reference to ACAC Commissioner Bill Hendsbee’s ruling of September 5/18 suspending OC Men’s Soccer player Ryan Wolff for 4 games. A red card was issued by the referee to Mr. Wolff in an August 26/18 non-conference Men’s Soccer game versus UofA Augustana in Red Deer. The referee deliberately categorized the violation as ‘Violent Conduct’ which according to OC Article 12, Section 13, 9.5.3.1 (page 142) results in a four-game suspension.

Step 1 of the ACAC Appeal Process requires that an Ad Hoc Appeal Review Committee of ACAC members chaired by Bob Murray and including Terry Ballard and Jim Knight, meet to determine if there are satisfactory grounds for the Appeal to move forward to Step 2 for review by an ACAC Appeal Panel.

The Role of the Ad Hoc Review Committee:

Per OC Article III, Section 4, the following describes the role of the Ad Hoc Review Committee:

8. Evaluation of Grounds for Appeal

8.1 The Case Manager shall convene an ad hoc evaluation committee consisting of the President, the President-Elect and one Council member to review the appeal to determine whether it meets the Grounds for Appeal identified in item 6 above. Should, in the opinion of the Case Manager, there be any evidence of conflict of interest with one of either the President or President-Elect, the Case Manager shall replace that member with an alternate from amongst Council.

8.2 More specifically, the ad hoc committee then has a responsibility to:

a) Determine if appeals are within the jurisdiction of this Policy;

b) Determine if appeals are brought in a timely manner;

c) Determine if appeals are brought on permissible grounds;

8.3 In the event the Ad Hoc Committee finds sufficient grounds for an appeal, the hearing shall be scheduled to be held within seven (7) days as per OC, Art. III, Sec. 4, 9.

Ad Hoc Review Committee Meeting:

The meeting of the Ad Hoc Review Committee by WebEx video conference was convened on Tuesday September 11/18 at 12:00pm, where documentation and a video of the incident in question submitted by OC was reviewed by the Ad Hoc Appeal Review Committee.

Olds College put forward the following 3 Grounds for Appeal as the basis for the Appeal to be considered, from amongst the excerpted list of 6 possible Grounds for Appeal in the ACAC Operating Code:

b) Failing to follow procedures as laid out in the By-Laws and/or Operating Code of the Conference;

c) Making a decision that was influenced by bias;

d) Failing to consider relevant information or taking into account irrelevant information in making the decision;

Grounds for Appeal according to OC Article III, Section 4:

6. Grounds for Appeal

6.1 Not every decision may be appealed. Decisions may only be appealed, and appeals may only be heard, only if there are sufficient grounds for the appeal. Sufficient grounds for appeal will include a minimum of one of the following as it relates to the decision rendered by the respondent:

a) Making a decision for which it did not have authority or jurisdiction as set out in governing documents of the Conference;

b) Failing to follow procedures as laid out in the By-Laws and/or Operating Code of the Conference;

c) Making a decision that was influenced by bias;

d) Failing to consider relevant information or taking into account irrelevant information in making the decision;

e) Exercising its discretion for an improper purpose; and/or

f) Making a decision which was grossly unreasonable.

Decision:

Whereas the Ad Hoc Review Committee unanimously determined that the Olds College Appeal falls within the jurisdiction of this Appeal Policy, and was brought forward within the allotted time frame, it was deemed that the appeal only satisfied the requirement of c) Making a decision that was influenced by bias;

This decision therefore constituted acceptable Grounds for Appeal and the Appeal can now progress forward in the process to an Appeal Panel Tribunal for a ruling.

Rationale:

1. The Ad Hoc Appeal Review Committee rejected Olds College’s assertion that this event and subsequent Commissioner’s ruling demonstrated b) Failing to follow procedures as laid out in the By-Laws and/or Operating Code of the Conference - Although the host institution (RDC) did not conform to expected ACAC standards by providing the correct ACAC scoresheet and Officials’ Report Form at the field, this had no meaningful bearing on the incident nor the subsequent reporting of same. The Referee indicated on the scoresheet provided that the Red Card was issued for Violent Conduct and OC did indeed receive a copy of the scoresheet post-match. The next day the referee completed and submitted an on-line Alberta Soccer Misconduct Report which was forwarded to the ACAC office and uploaded to Dropbox by the ACAC office. Olds College has access to this Dropbox Account and should accept responsibility for researching this Misconduct Report as part of their own follow up to the Red Card issued to their own player, which clearly was available within 24 hours. - Upon receipt of the scoresheet and ASA Misconduct Report, the ACAC office staff and the Commissioner followed ACAC protocol with acknowledgement that the ruling was issued later than usual. This is due to the timing of the incident at the end of August and the Labour Day long weekend when presumably the Commissioner was not available to rule as promptly as normally expected. It is recommended that the Commissioner inform the office and ACAC membership when he may not be available to review incidents and issue rulings promptly.

2. The Ad Hoc Appeal Review Committee also rejected Olds College’s assertion that this event and subsequent Commissioner’s ruling demonstrated a d) Failing to consider relevant information or taking into account irrelevant information in making the decision. - Whereas Olds College submitted a video clip of the incident in question, along with a corresponding still photo, this had no bearing on the suspension decision issued by Commissioner Hendsbee. The Operating Code clearly indicates that a 4-game suspension is the consequence for a red card offence described by the Referee as Violent Conduct. Although the Commissioner is authorized to exercise the prerogative to increase or decrease a suspension resulting from a Red Card incident (Article I, Section 12, 9.9.10), there is no obligation to do so. - The video and photographic evidence supplied by OC would more appropriately accompany an Appeal of a Ruling, as has been provided.

3. The Ad Hoc Appeal Review Committee did agree with Olds College’s assertion that the Commissioner’s ruling may have been influenced and accepts the following Grounds for Appeal c) Making a decision that was influenced by bias;

- Following the incident and without request for any additional information from the Commissioner, UofA Augustana Athletic Director Greg Ryan submitted two post-game reports to the Commissioner which described the post-game health/condition of Augustana player Travis Dolter who was involved in the on-field incident. One report was written by Mr. Dolter’s father and the other by an Augustana teammate. - The Commissioner normally would not request or consider those types of reports in an initial red card ruling however he subsequently referenced those two reports in his ruling and it could be argued that they therefore influenced the ruling.

- By submitting those two unsolicited reports directly to the Commissioner, Augustana breached normal ACAC protocol/practice. Pending a disciplinary ruling from the Commissioner, additional information/reports/evidence should be withheld until requested by the Commissioner and/or submitted to the ACAC office/CEO for review and consideration rather than to the individual mandated to issue a ruling. - If a Supplemental Disciplinary Review by the Commissioner is requested by a member institution, the submission of that request needs to be clear and formal and accompanied by the corresponding fee.

Conclusion:

As per the decision of the Ad Hoc Appeals Review Committee and OC Article III, Section 4, the determination is that sufficient grounds for the appeal are found and the Appeal will be considered by an Appeal Panel. The original decision of the Commissioner is stayed pending the outcome of the Appeal Panel Hearing.