The appeals committee that returned the Eastern Counties trophy to Cleveland County did so because it decided the punishment was “manifestly excessive in all circumstances”.

The committee also ruled that Cleveland’s actions did not constitute bringing the game into disrepute, nor did the umpire’s report suggest they were under “duress, couldn’t perform their duties or were rattled” during the heated game.

The umpires were not present at the appeal hearing, and the only report that was taken into account was that of James McKirdy, who stood in the game alongside Oscar Andrade. Alex Knight was the third umpire, and neither he, nor Andrade, were consulted by the appeals committee.

The Royal Gazette has obtained a copy of the committee’s ruling, which has not been released by the Eastern Counties Cricket Association.

According to the committee, which was chaired by Larry Mussenden, the Bermuda Football Association president, and included Reginald Pearman and Lynnell Shakir, the ECCA erred from the very start in its actions immediately after the game between Bailey’s Bay and Cleveland.

In the opinion of the committee, the initial hearing on July 19 was unconstitutional. That hearing resulted in Cleveland being stripped of the cup, with Bay then declared champions, which was also unconstitutional.

According to the committee, Cleveland were not given the chance to defend themselves at the first meeting, during which the majority of information surrounding the events of the previous day were taken from a report compiled by Devrae Hollis.

Hollis, as the ECCA accepts, was not at the game on July 18, and his observations had been gathered from others. In addition, the umpire’s report was also not presented at the meeting because it did not become available until July 21.

The committee also decided that no weight should be attached to the conclusion that Bay would have won the game if it had been played in “the spirit it was supposed to be” because that was just the opinion of Eddie Lamb, the match manager.

During the appeal hearing, Cleveland and the ECCA both made submissions, with Cleveland represented by Courtney Trott, McNeil McGowan and Clay Smith, while Derek Wright represented the governing body.

Cleveland’s appealed on several grounds including that: the umpire’s report said the match ended properly; that Irvine Romaine, the Bailey’s Bay coach, was also delaying the game; and that punishing players is a separate matter to changing the result of a game.

In its response, the ECCA argued that: the meeting of July 19 was an appropriate response given the severity of the situation; the ECCA was within its rights to strip Cleveland of the cup; and that Cleveland benefited from the actions of its players.

Wright also admitted that, under the Laws of the Game, officials could have penalised Cleveland penalty runs by exercising Law 18 and Law 42, but this was “not applied because of the stress on the umpires”.

Steven Douglas, the ECCA president, and Diallo Rabain, the secretary, have failed to respond to questions surrounding the actions of the governing body, during and after the game.

Ultimately, the appeals committee sided with Cleveland, noting that not giving the club the right to defend itself in the first instance went against the Rules of Natural Justice.

Mussenden and Pearman were also of the opinion that if Cleveland were to be punished, a fine, reprimand or probation would have been more appropriate.

“Even if CCCC [Cleveland] had brought the game into disrepute, then the decision to strip CCCC of the trophy and award it to BCCC [Bay] was manifestly excessive in all circumstances,” the appeals committee concludes.

The ECCA has been largely silent on the appeals process, although it did release a statement yesterday asking for understanding over the committee’s decision.

In the statement, the ECCA said it would accept the ruling and was keen to now turn its attention to Saturday’s second round between Cleveland and Flatts.

The ECCA said it plans to review its rules and regulations once the season is over to “ensure that protocols are in place to address these types of incidents in the future”.