Case Number:

ON/328/20

Tommy Makinson #2, St Helens

Competition:

Super League

Match:

St Helens v Castleford

Match Date:

2020-08-16

Incident:

Details of allegation: Other Contrary Behaviour in the 13th minute (Watts)

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Rule – 15.1(i)
Detail – Other contrary behaviour
Grade – F

Fine:

£500

Sanctions:

8 plus

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Guilty but challenging grading

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 17th August, the player is 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 13th minute of the above Match. In the Panel’s opinion, the player promoted his hand to the groin area of an opponent (Watts) and appeared to apply pressure to the genital area. The Panel believed that the actions were unnecessary, had the potential to cause your opponent an injury, against the true spirit of the game and constitute Misconduct.

Following an approach from Castleford player Liam Watts who had been involved in a tackle with the ball carrier Mr Makinson, Mr Watts stated he wished for the referee to place the incident on report following play continuing for just over a minute.

The Match Review Panel considered the footage to show a clear and completely unnecessary approach by Mr Makinson on Mr Watts.

The footage clearly shows Mr Makinson’s hands between the legs of Mr Watts, with the elbow on the floor. Mr Watts is in a lunge like position and turns and shouts to the referee.

The contact is approximately 2 seconds long. It is worth noting that Mr Watts does not appear to be in pain at this point. There is no medical treatment at any stage for Mr Watts and the club have not submitted anything further in this regard. The statement provided by Mr Watts is clear that contact was made, and he is consistent and persistent in his immediate reporting in the game. The referees additional report states that the initial appeal from Mr Watts and the follow up at the point on placing the incident on report, was one of shock – which is similar in terms of the report which Mr Watts himself submits.

The Match Review Panel watched the footage closely and broke down the various stages of the tackle, and without the statements from Mr Watts or the referee were clear in their decision to issue a charge to Mr Makinson due to the footage provided.

The charge for this is graded at F only due to the nature of the offence. The approach by Mr Makinson was completely unnecessary. It could only be deemed as a deliberate contact as the hand does not demonstrate a pushing motion to protect Mr Makinson from Mr Watts. It is not submitted that Mr Makinson intentionally attempted to harm Mr Watts in this contact.

The Panel are comfortable that this is a clear Grade F charge and the sanction applied should reflect the nature of the contact made. Players and Opponents take to the field of Rugby League knowing this is a hard, fast, contact sport and take part with the knowledge of injuries as a result of high speed collisions and the like. Contact of this nature is not something players should fear whilst playing rugby league, nor should it be considered acceptable. Players have a duty of care to opponents and also a responsibility to the game in order they do not damage the profile of the game or bring the game into disrepute. Mr Makinson has failed in all regards it is submitted.

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

Mike Rush, CEO representing the player states the Club plead guilty but challenge the grading. Mr Rush states the incident does not look good but there was certainly no intent to injure. This is compared with a comparable clip of an incident involving a Bradford player last year who was found guilty of an attack to the groin region. In that case Mr Rush states, there is a clear difference that was a deliberate attack, the opponent was clearly injured, and this instance is not in that bracket. Kristian Woolf, Head Coach adds that the player is coached to create space in the tackle by using an opponent’s body as a lever to get a quick ruck. The player himself states this is how he is coached but as he has grabbed at an opponent to get to ground quicker, he realises that he has grabbed at the groin region and it does not look good and accepts fault in this regard. There was certainly no malice or intent to injure. Mr Rush ends that there was no injury to the opponent or did he receive medical attention.

Decision:

Challenge successful. Grading reduced to Grade E

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal thank everybody in this case for their submissions. The Tribunal do not believe this is a Grade F charge as there was no intent or malice to injure however it is a serious matter and was not simply an accident. The player has held onto the region for at least 2 seconds and must have realised this and was reckless in his attempt to disadvantage an opponent to get a quick play the ball. The Tribunal believe that this incident is to be graded as a Grade E.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

Player has an excellent disciplinary record over a 10-year career both domestically and internationally with only one incident of a Grade A Dangerous Contact in 2019.

Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

The player says he is embarrassed by what has happened and reiterates there was certainly no intent to injure.

Aggravating Factors:

No further submissions

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal in determining the sanction have found that this charge should be a Grade E offence. The matter is still one of a serous nature and but for the players show of remorse, otherwise excellent character, and good record then the sanction may have been much higher. Taking all factors into account, the Tribunal believe that a 5 match suspension and a £500 fine is appropriate in this instance.

Suspension:

5 matches