- The girl’s team had rejected rumors before the match that she was a boy
- She made a tackle on the daughter of the man before flying out of the handle
- He accused her of being a “boy f ******” but apologized later for his behavior
A father would have been slapped with an 18 -week -old touchline ban after allegedly shouted “ You are AF ****** Boy ‘during a girl in a rugby match under 12 after hearing rumors that she was transgender.
Graham Hall, 45, entered the field of the game and shouted abuses to the girl after having made a tackle on her daughter in a match of the Surrey Cup in January.
The girl left the field in tears and her father headed for Hall, who reaffirmed that he believed that the girl was a boy before the couple begins to compete and had to be separated.
Although he had felt “frightened and panicked” and that he had trouble breathing, the girl returned to action and apologized to Hall’s daughter, on which she had fallen and had screaming.
According to the Telegraph, Hall’s diatribe was as follows: “ You are AF ****** boy and should not play on the girl’s side … You are clearly not a girl and look at what you did.
“It was F ****** unnecessary, why would you do that?”
A man received an 18 -week touch line ban after accused a daughter of being transgender in a under 12 rugby match (Stock Image used)
The daughter left the ground by feeling “frightened and panicked ” and her father confronted the man, who apologized later
Hall’s daughter had told her opponent that everything was fine and “no fault”.
The abused girl said: “I love playing rugby for the Cobham team and we have a very good team spirit and we take care of every moment. We always have a lot of fun and I am the happiest when I play rugby.
After the match, Hall, whose daughter plays for Rosslyn Park, questioned the RFU on transgender regulations.
Due to rumors, Rosslyn Park had asked Cobham before the match if they aligned boys, which their opponents denied.
Hall apologized later, but, while testified, challenged the legality of the tackle and denied swearing to the girl.
The disciplinary panel said that his vision of the girl was based “on a rumor and a completely unfounded conjecture which were in fact wrong”.
His conduct was described as “shameful” and under rule 5.12 – conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Union and the Game – he was informed of 24 weeks earlier at 18 years old.
His “acceptance of bad behavior and his good previous disciplinary file” means that they were willing to reduce punishment. He also had to pay £ 125 in costs and on April 8 to appeal.
