Case Number:

ON/046/20

Peter Matautia #1, Castleford

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Toronto v Castleford

Match Date:

2020-02-02

Incident:

Late hit in the 56th minute (Wilkin)

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Rule – 15.1(i)
Detail – A defending players makes contact with an opponent after the ball has been released by an opponent in a vulnerable position which causes excessive flexion to the head, neck or spinal column
Grade – B

Fine:

£500

Sanctions:

2 Match Penalty Notice

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Guilty but challenge grading

Summary of CM's submissions on the Charge / evidence:

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 3rd February 2020, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(i) during the above Match.

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in approximately the 56th minute of the above Match. In the Panel’s opinion you made contact with your opponent (Wilkin) whilst in a vulnerable position after the ball had been passed. The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary and had the potential to cause your opponent injury.

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade B offence (A defending players makes contact with an opponent after the ball has been released by an opponent in a vulnerable position which causes excessive flexion to the head, neck or spinal column). The normal suspension range for such offence is from a 1 – 2 match suspension.

Miss Fairbank (RFL Compliance Manager) explained the differences in the comparison clip were:

• Lower force used
• Players come together (Wilkin stationary)
• Attempt made to wrap up opponent
• Player follows down to the floor with opponent
• No concussion assessment needed

Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence:

Player in attendance and accompanied by Jon Wells (Director of Rugby) and Richard Cramer (Legal Rep).

Mr Cramer informed the tribunal that the player is pleading guilty to the charge but they are arguing about the grading. In their opinion the charge is worthy of a caution.

The panel are then shown a comparison clip (same player v Toronto in January). Mr Wells is of the opinion that the incidents are not different, indeed the incident that the player has been charged for saw the player have less reaction time than in the comparison. Mr Cramer added that they were just looking for consistency.

Mr Wells informed the panel that after receiving the caution the player had been spoken to about his technique when faced with this scenario.

Mr Wells added that the footage from this incident (via SKY) does not always help as the quality of the footage and camera angles are better than the club supplied footage used in the comparison. He asked the panel to bear in mind what decisions the player has to make in what he had timed as 0.3 seconds.

The player added that it was not malicious and there was no intent. He pointed out his side were a player short on the short side and knowing the quality of the opponent he had to try and stop the attack.

Mr Cramer concluded that the player was committed to the challenge.

Decision:

Guilty but challenge grading

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal accept that there was no intent to injure the opponent, however, they are of the view that the player was going into contact with no attempt to complete the tackle or wrap his arms around his opponent. He also made no attempt to avoid contact and perhaps even made a slight movement towards the player.

Contact was made with the opponent unsighted and in a vulnerable position, and players have a duty of care when on the pitch. The Tribunal believe there was a risk of injury and on this occasion the opponent looked to suffer some kind of whiplash motion and had to leave the field for a head injury assessment.

With regards to the comparison clip the Tribunal feel there are several differences, and whilst they believe that consistency should be sought, on this occasion they feel that rather than a caution, the incident should have in fact been charged.

The Tribunal therefore feel that in this instance the grading at Grade B is correct, especially as there was a risk of injury and the act was reckless.

The challenge to the penalty notice is therefore dismissed.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

• Incident occurs in the 56th minute of the match
• Player approaches opponent following an offload
• Player has an unobstructed view of opponent
• Player does not adapt following opponent offloading the ball
• Player accelerates into contact
• Player changes direction into contact
• Player makes contact as opponent is in a relaxed, unsighted, vulnerable state
• Player demonstrates no attempt to tackle opponent
• Player approaches at speed generating moderate force to the contact
• Opponent’s body demonstrates whiplash action
• Opponent lands forcefully
• Opponent leaves the field for a concussion assessment (returns to play)
• Grade B due to:
- Reckless contact as player sees the ball is offloaded and still proceeds into contact
- Involves an unacceptable risk of injury to opponent
- Lack of duty of care demonstrated towards opponent

Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

Mr Cramer felt this felt well short of a frivolous challenge. This is a new type of offence and indeed the only comparable clip was from just two weeks ago and featured the same player.

Players or clubs shouldn’t be prejudiced, and the player accepts his guilt. The comparison clip used is at a lesser charge and it wasn’t a speculative approach to challenge. The club had though hard about the challenge and acted in good faith.

Aggravating Factors:

23/01/20 – Dangerous Contact (Caution)
04/06/18 – Dangerous Throw (4 matches & £250)
31/05/18 – High Tackle (1 match)
09/07/17 – Tripping (n/a)

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal feel that the challenge was not frivolous. They therefore hand down a 2-match suspension and £500 fine.

The club also lose the appeal bond.

Suspension:

2 matches