A security guard who was given a warning after using "excessive force" on a pitch invader during a rugby match at Eden Park says he is willing to do anger management training.
Police complained to the security licensing authority afterwards, alleging the guard was guilty of misconduct after responding with violence.
The guard told the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority he was under severe stress at the time and it was a "high-pressure environment".
He accepted full responsibility for his excessive actions in restraining the pitch invader.
Criminal charges have not been laid, but police said they had been working with the guard’s employer, P4G Security.
The guard has been undergoing counselling and was willing to do anger management training.
The guard was not named in the authority’s recently released decision following an inquiry into his case, but was instead described as "Mr FW".
Two pitch invaders prompted news reports when they were heavily tackled into the ground at the Blues-Melbourne Rebels Super Rugby Pacific match in early May, but P4G regional manager Gary Wyatt said the incident involving Mr FW happened at the Blues-Highlanders match two weeks later.
Mr Wyatt declined to comment further on the incident or on whether pitch invaders were getting to be more of a problem.
Authority member Kate Lash said she was satisfied Mr FW’s actions amounted to misconduct.
"He acted unnecessarily and used excessive force.
"It was a high-pressure situation, but he should have been able to exercise his role without resorting to the use of violence", Ms Lash said.
"Such behaviour is not acceptable, particularly in security workers," she said.
"I do note that this person was providing serious difficulties for the security staff and did have to be restrained.
"Nonetheless, violence should not have been used."
P4G Security told the authority that it had given Mr FW a formal written warning and removed him from public-facing roles.
Mr FW would remain under review for six months and when he returned to frontline duties he would do so under supervision.
P4G said the guard had been with them for four years and was "a good, responsible employee".
Ms Lash said Mr FW’s certificate of approval (COA), allowing him to be in the industry, would be made subject to a condition that he not attract the negative attention of police again.
If he did so, particularly for a similar issue, police could apply to suspend his COA immediately.
Mr FW would have to remain an employee of P4G for the next 12 months.
If he changed employer, he had to tell the authority, which might review his status.
Mr FW would also have to continue anger management counselling "until such time as P4G is satisfied it is no longer necessary", Ms Lash said.
— Ric Stevens, PIJF court reporter
