WCF Code of Conduct

The WCF adopted a Code of Conduct Policy and an associated Complaints Procedure on 27th August 2024.

The WCF Code of Conduct policy is set out in clause 116 of the WCF Statutes:

116 Code of Conduct
To protect the integrity of the sport of croquet and to promote an orderly, courteous, safe, and fair environment for playing the sport, the WCF and any individual or body interacting with it or working on WCF related activities, shall:

116.1 Observe all relevant rules and regulations relating to the WCF and its Members and Event Hosts, as applicable to the activity being undertaken;

116.2 At all times uphold the Laws and Rules of Croquet in all forms of the sport including those pertaining to behaviours and any Regulations applicable to tournaments in which they are competing or which they are attending;

116.3 Behave in a spirit of friendship, good sportsmanship and fair play when playing or attending at any WCF event;

116.4 Not engage in behaviour that involves bullying, abuse, harassment, discrimination, victimisation, neglect or defamation.

There are also some related clauses contained within the WCF Sports Regulations. These can both be found and downloaded on the Statutes & Regulations page of this website.

The Code of Conduct Complaints procedure can be downloaded here> WCF Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure

If you wish to make a complaint under the WCF Code of Conduct, please first ensure that you have read and understood the relevant clauses in our Statutes and Regulations.

 

Below are some questions that we think might be relevant. They are included here for illustrative purposes and are not formally part of the policy.

• • Why does the WCF policy apply during host managed events? Should it not be the local policy that is applicable?

Hosts manage WCF tournaments on our behalf. However, this is done in accordance with our statutes and regulations and under a signed Event Agreement. The WCF also controls or has input into the appointment of officials and requires certain indemnities and insurances to be put in place. As such, we are operating under an agency agreement, with the host acting on our behalf. Therefore, if there is an incident related to WCF business during the event, it falls under the WCF policy.

• • What types of incidents fall under the WCF policy as opposed to a Member policy?

For this policy to be applicable, the complainant needs to fall within the definition of WCF Affiliate, as defined in the policy. The incident needs to fall within the scope defined in application, i.e. that the incident took place whilst involved in WCF related activities.

Incidents might take place ‘at’ a WCF event that are not related to the event itself. For instance, two WCF volunteers discussing progress relating to a WCF project. If one was to behave inappropriately, for instance threatening or bullying the other, then this is within scope.

Incidents might also take place that are not ‘about’ WCF business, but that take place during a WCF activity. For instance, if two players were to have a fight at one of our events, even if their fight was about another matter entirely, this might be in scope. Such behaviour would be inappropriate and could bring our sport into disrepute or upset other players, hosts or spectators.

• • Why does the policy refer to ‘WCF premises’ – the WCF do not own or operate out of offices?

A meeting might take place at a host events venue, online, or at some other place entirely. The key point is that the reason for the meeting must be in relation to WCF activity in which both parties were involved.

• • Does it matter where the incident took place?

The location of the offence does not define whether the incident is in scope. What is relevant is whether at the time of the incident, the Complainant was a WCF Affiliate actively engaged in WCF matters.

So, per the WCF affiliate definition: ‘an individual in attendance by invitation at premises or locations under the control of the WCF or at which a WCF Event is being held’.

‘At premises’ might include the whole footprint of a club, including restaurants, bars, changing rooms or even the carpark. It can also mean any venue where a meeting is being held, and in today’s electronic world, can also include online attendance at a meeting, telephone calls or even emails.

• • What if people argue over something non-related to WCF croquet?

It would depend on whether they fall within the definition of WCF Affiliate. Below are 3 examples which we hope will help to clarify:

Example 1: Two players in a Championship start a discussion about a matter unrelated to croquet, for instance, their football teams. One starts to shout at the other in a threatening or intimidating way:

a) by the edge of the croquet lawn during a WCF championship - in scope
b) in the bar of the club where a WCF event is being held - in scope
c) in the local pub at lunchtime - not in scope. This is now a private matter

Example 2: A player and a spectator start a discussion about the event they are attending, perhaps about the seeding or the draw. They disagree, and one starts shouting at, and bullying the other. If this happens:

a) by the edge of the croquet lawn during a WCF championship - in scope
b) in the bar of the club where a WCF event is being held -in scope
c) in a nearby local pub at lunchtime - we would hope that the player would still represent our sport respectfully, but this is no longer in scope. The spectator is now not a WCF affiliate and could not be sanctioned (potentially being completely unknown).

Example 3: Two players start a discussion about a WCF workgroup project they are both working on. They disagree, and one starts shouting at, and bullying the other. If this happens:

a) at a WCF meeting, whether in-person, online, over the phone or even in-writing - in scope
b) by the edge of the croquet lawn during a WCF championship - in scope
c) in the bar of the club where a WCF event is being held - in scope
d) in the local pub at lunchtime: still in scope, they are WCF Affiliates discussing WCF matters related to the project.

• • What types of activities might be included in the affiliate definition 2 ii) of: “an individual providing services or assistance to the WCF (or at a WCF Event) whether as a contractor, an employee, a coach, or a volunteer and irrespective of the duty being performed”?

This could be anybody assisting with the Event organisation or administration. For instance, someone providing a taxi service ferrying players between venues, a live-streaming provider, employees at the venue, the bartender, the catering staff etc.

• • How does this policy link to the existing provisions within the Sports Regulations for an Appeals Panel?

4.5.2 provides for an Appeals Panel to be convened if there is an appeal from a player in relation to a decision taken by the Tournament Manager per Sports Regulations 4.3.12. The TM will be able to enforce the new Code if it is infringed by a player, and if appealed the Panel would be convened.

4.5.3 provides for an Appeals Panel to be convened if there is an appeal from a non-player in relation to a decision taken by the Event Lead or Tournament Director, with respect to a breach of the Code of Conduct, per Sports Regulations clauses 4.1.10 and 4.2.14.

• • Why is the WCF now recommending that all Members have their own policy? Surely this is nothing to do with the WCF?

The WCF has a responsibility to work with its Members to protect the reputation of croquet as a sport. The proposal puts in place uniform standards that would be expected of those wishing to benefit from association and membership with the Governing body of our sport.

• • What happens if the Secretary-General and/or the President are conflicted?

Appointment of an independent panel of Investigators should insure impartiality. The investigation is not handled directly by either individual, other than the logging of the case in the WCF records and other unavoidable admin.

Should an incident occur, an impartial Investigator will be selected from the panel below:

Adam Barr (Canada), Begoña Elzaburu (Spain), Brian Durwood (Scotland), Debbie Lines (England), Gabrielle Higgins (England), Graeme Roberts (NZ), Grant Poulton (New Zealand), Ian Burridge (Wales), Jane Beharriell (Canada), Jeff Soo (USA), Judith Hanratty (New Zealand), Keith Aiton (England) and Roberts Stafeckis (Latvia).

More potential Investigators are required to ensure that should an incident occur, we have someone who is both suitable and available. Please contact your National Governing Body to volunteer, who will pass it onto us.