Case Number:

ON/637/20

Michael McIlorum #9, Catalans

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Leeds v Catalans

Match Date:

2020-11-13

Incident:

High tackle in 52nd minute (Dwyer)

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

15.1 (b)
High tackle – Careless – Ball carrier dips
Grade B

Fine:

£500

Sanctions:

2 Match Penalty Notice

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Guilty, but challenging grading

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

The MRP reviewed the incident which occurred in the 52nd minute. The Panel were concerned by the nature of the contact which resulted in direct contact being made by Mr McIlorum with the head of his opponent, Brad Dwyer.

Mr McIlorum has not disputed the charge made against him but has sought to challenge the grading of the charge.

Mr Dwyer returns the ball and is part tackled around the legs by Catalans’ Sam Kasiano. However, as Mr Dwyer seeks to continue to make progress, Mr McIlorum makes further direct contact with Mr Dwyer around the head with his hand and arm. There are no other Players involved in the tackle.

Focussing on the action of Mr McIlorum:
• Mr McIlorum makes direct contact with his opponent’s head and does not take reasonable care when making the tackle and assessing the position of his opponent’s head.
• Mr McIlorum uses a clenched fist and it is his hand and lower arm that makes contact with Mr Dwyer.
• He also swings his arm through in a partially upward motion which connect with the opponent’s head.
• Whilst there was an acknowledgment by the Match Review Panel that Mr Dwyer was moved off his line by the initial tackle of Mr Kasiano, the Panel felt that this tackle was still at the higher end of careless and that there were elements of recklessness to the tackle.

A question the review panel are often asked is what could the player do differently. The Panel submit Mr McIlorum could have:
• Taken more account of the position of his opponent’s head when making the tackle.
• Not swung his arm through which increases the force when connection is made with Mr Dwyer’s head.
• Not clenched his fist when swinging the arm through which also increases the force with which he connected with the opponent

Mr Dwyer received treatment on field for a short period, looking to be somewhat dazed and with blood coming from his nose and mouth, which caused disruption to Mr Dwyer’s game beyond the period of treatment also.

It is submitted that the actions of Mr McIlorum are careless, with elements of recklessness (e.g. swinging arm and clenched fist). In accordance with 8.2.3 of the On Field Sentencing Guidelines, a person acts carelessly if their conduct falls below the standard expected of the ordinary reasonable player. The test is objective, based on the hypothetical player, and involves the person either doing something the reasonable player would not do, or not doing something which the reasonable player would do. It does not matter that the person was unaware that the result of their act/omission might happen, if the reasonable player would have realised the risk and taken steps to avoid it. In showing that a person has acted carelessly, the RFL does need not show that the person intended or acted recklessly in relation to the result.

It was the Match Review Panel’s submission that the reasonable player would not tackle an opponent in this manner and with such force. Players should always consider the position of their opponent’s head when making such tackles as all players know the potential for serious injury if direct contact with the head is made.

The failure to demonstrate a duty of care has resulted in direct contact with Mr Dwyer’s head being made and resulted in blood being drawn from Mr Dwyer’s nose and mouth. It is fortunate that Mr Dwyer did not sustain a more serious injury as a result of the contact. It is however clearly an aggravating factor that Mr Dwyer suffered a loss of blood from a facial injury following the incident.

Defending players must act reasonably and should adapt behaviours where the possible result of an act is obvious. In the case of Mr McIlorum the possible outcome is obvious. Mr McIlorum does not make effective adaptations or attempt to make adaptations to avoid this risk. As such the MRP applied a Grade B charge and it is respectfully submitted that this level of sanction should be retained.

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

Player in attendance alongside Steve McNamara (Head Coach) and legal representatives Richard Cramer and Jonathan Crystal QC.

JC addressed the tribunal and explained that they felt that the players arm was at a reasonable height and contact was made with him in a legitimate position. He questioned where else could the players arm go and that contact was unavoidable. Whilst it was undeniable that contact had been made with the opponents face they felt it was not a Grade B offence.

The player told the panel that he was moving off the line at speed and was trying to close a gap in the defensive line. He believed his arm was not raised and that it was a natural tackling technique. He felt it was certainly not a reckless tackle and he was not sure of the point of contact.

SM explained that the Referee was in a clear position to see the incident and did not award a penalty. The Video Referee also had chance to make a decision and indeed none of the on-field officials reported anything. He felt the grading was incorrect and echoed that the player was trying to fill space left by a teammate.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Reasons for Decision:

We accept that there was a gap in the defensive line that needed to be filled and that Mr McIlorum had a duty to fill it and make the tackle.

It is submitted that his arm remains at a reasonable height and that there was little that he could do in the circumstances in seeking to make this tackle, however, what we see is a swing of the arm in a slightly upwards trajectory towards a player that is falling. Mr McIlorum hand is not flat nor is the palm of his hand towards the player, contact is with the back of the hand at a time when his fingers are closed albeit not entirely in the shape of a fist. This causes a firm surface to make contact with the head and must be with some force as it led to bleeding from the nose

We feel that these factors do make his actions careless and it does fall below the standard of a prudent player and merits a Grade B charge.

The comparison clip does not help as in our view whilst contact with the head was with the arm of Sarginson (Warrington v Wigan) rather than a closed hand. A mitigating feature there was an element of swinging arm and a Grade B could in our view have been justified in that case also.

The Tribunal therefore feel a 2 match suspension is appropriate.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Suspension:

2 matches