Case Number:

ON/468/20

Dan Sarginson #4, Salford

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Hull FC v Salford

Match Date:

2020-09-24

Incident:

High tackle in the 21st minute (Shaul)

Decision:

Caution

Charge Detail:

Rule – 15.1(b)
Detail – Tried to tackle but reckless about outcome
Grade – B

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Not Guilty

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 28th September 2020, the player was charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(b) during the above Match.

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in approximately the 21st minute of the above Match. The player was temporarily dismissed following the incident. In the Panel’s opinion while attempting to tackle the player contacted the head of the opponent (Shaul). The Panel believed that the actions were unnecessary and caused the opponent injury.

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade B offence (High Tackle –Reckless – tried to tackle but reckless about outcome). The normal suspension range for such offence is from a 2 – 3 match suspension.

In the Match Reviews Panel’s opinion, the player approaches contact recklessly and does not make adaptations to approach or allow time to adapt. It is reasonable for a player to assume the player may drop when catching the ball.

There is direct contact from left arm of Player direct to the head of opponent and the opponent receives treatment and leaves the field for a Head Injury Assessment. The opponent passes the Assessment and returns to the field.

The offence is Graded at B due to the high force and speed of contact and the technique was reckless which resulted in direct contact with the head.

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

Ian Watson, Salford Head Coach speaking on behalf of the player pleads not guilty to this offence. The Club accept that the ere has been contact with the head however believe that the actions of the opponent were the contributing factor to why this occurred. The player is chasing a kick through and slows down to see where the ball is, then accelerates again. Mr Watson states that upon reviewing the opponent, Mr Shaul, is a player who stands when taking a kick through as opposed to leaping off the floor to enable him to attack immediately. Recognising this the Club have instructed pressure to be applied quickly to the opponent to stop this which is why the player closes this space down quickly. The players arms are down by there side upon approach and there is no swing. The player is only a maximum of 2 metres away and the opponent is still on his feet. The player then goes into make the tackle and the opponent chooses to lose his feet with less then a second for the opponent to react. The opponent is down by the players waist as he comes into contact and the contact with the head can only be described as accidental due to the actions of the opponent and there being no time for the player to react. It is appreciated that the player goes off for a Head Injury Assessment but again the Club argue that there was no inappropriate technique used, the tackle was a grabbing motion from which started at worst at the bottom of the neck, if not on the shoulder and then rides up and over the opponents head. Mr Watson goes onto add that he understands there is a duty of care to opponents, however there was no time for any reasonable adjustment to be made in this instance. The Club submit the comparable clip of Kevin Naiqama which the Club says has a lot of similarities but is much worse in terms of outcome and the ability of the starting positioning of the players arm which could indeed be classed as reckless.

Decision:

Not guilty of a reckless high tackle. Downgraded to a careless high tackle

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal have studied this incident with great care. The sport is a high collision, contact sport where unfortunate incidents may occur. It is the duty of players to minimise such incidents in the actions they take. In this case the Tribunal cannot say that the tackle was one of a reckless nature but was careless in respect of the contact with the head. The player does not keep his arms down, there is no swinging motion and the opponent drops at the last split second. There is however contact to the players head and why the player is found guilty of a careless high tackle is that approaching in the speed the player did, he had no opportunity to adjust. However, as previously stated by the Tribunal, the tackle itself did not employ a technique which could be deemed as reckless and the decision of the opponent to lose their feet was a contributory factor to contact with the head. Players however have a duty of care to avoid contact this contact where possible however the Tribunal feel that this was careless, not reckless.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

Player accepts there was contact with the head but that the player’s decision to drop at the last minute made such an outcome possible.

Aggravating Factors:

Player has 2 incidents on his record, both of which did not result in suspensions.

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal in reaching their decision do not feel that this incident should be a charged offence and should be reduced to a Caution. While this was a deemed a careless high tackle, the Tribunal do not feel that anything other than a Caution is the appropriate action in this respect.

Suspension:

Downgraded to a Caution