Case Number:

ON/638/20

Michael McIlorum #9, Catalans

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Leeds v Catalans

Match Date:

2020-11-13

Incident:

Other Contrary Behaviour in 52nd minute (Dwyer)

Decision:

No charge

Charge Detail:

15.1 (i)
Other Contrary Behaviour
Grade F

Sanctions:

8+

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 16th November, 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 52nd minute of the above Match. In the Panel’s opinion, you behaved in a manner contrary to the spirt of the game in that you interfered with an injured opponent (Dwyer) who was on the ground following a tackle. The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary, had the potential to cause your opponent serious injury and were against the spirit of the game.

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade F offence (Other Contrary Behaviour). If found to have committed the offence, again in accordance with the On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the minimum suspension for such offence is an 8 match suspension.

The Match Review Panel reviewed the incident which occurred in the 52nd minute. The Panel were extremely concerned by the nature of Mr McIlorum’s contact that he made with 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 is on the floor having been tackled by Mr McIlorum, an incident that has already been reviewed by this Tribunal, in which Mr Dwyer has taken a direct blow to the head from Mr McIlorum. Whilst Mr Dwyer is still on the floor and obviously still affected by the impact of the tackle, holding his head, Mr McIlorum grabs him in the shoulder area and seeks to bring Mr Dwyer to his feet. Mr Dwyer is unable to stand properly and remains on the floor, subsequently receiving treatment for his injury, including the removal of blood from his nose and mouth area.

Focussing on the action of Mr McIlorum:
• Mr Dwyer is obviously injured having suffered the impact to his head.
• Mr McIlorum is aware of Mr Dwyer being injured having: (i) made the tackle himself and (ii) taken up a position as marker and looking directly at his opponent on the floor.
• An injured Player on the floor must not be interfered with by other Players on the field, especially considering that the Player has potentially suffered an injury to his head or neck area. Moving a Player who has suffered an injury of this nature could cause significant further injury to the Player.
• By seeking to move his opponent in the way that he did, Mr McIlorum showed no regard for the safety of another Player, most particularly having been the person who had contacted him in the first place. Mr McIlorum’s actions seek to trivialise the injury suffered and show no regard for his opponent’s welfare.
• Clearly at the point where Mr McIlorum sought to move his opponent, he was not aware of the extent of any injury (other than the fact that his opponent was in distress) and therefore he should not have been seeking to move him at all

A question the review panel are often asked in any such situation is what could the Player have done differently – it seems self evident to us that Mr McIlorum should not have touched Mr Dwyer at all. His actions were extremely dangerous and showed a real disregard for the safety of a fellow professional.
Mr Dwyer received treatment on field for a short period.

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, most particularly paragraph 1.2 (Underlying Principles) Rugby League is a hard, fast, contact sport played at professional level by athletic players. In a sport with high speed collisions there will always be injuries and players take part with this knowledge. The disciplinary system is not intended to sanitise the sport, however, there is no place in the game for players who jeopardise the safety of others by intentional, dangerous or malicious acts.

It was the Match Review Panel’s view that the contact made by Mr McIllorum, whilst not aggressive as such, is certainly intentional, made fully in the knowledge that the Player was already injured and defenceless on the floor.

The definition of intentional is defined at paragraph 8.2.1 of the On Field Sentencing Guidelines as “a person acts intentionally with respect to a result when: (i) it is their purpose to cause it or (ii) although it is not his purpose to cause that result, he is aware and should be aware that it would almost certainly occur in the ordinary course of events”.

Mr McIlorum should be absolutely aware that moving a person with potential concussion is extremely dangerous and indeed we understand he has previously attended a Concussion Workshop, during which the seriousness of concussions is discussed and confirmation provided that a concussed player should not be moved. Whilst this injury was not treated as a concussion on the field, Mr Dwyer was treated at the time and Mr McIlorum would not have been aware of the extent of his impact on Mr Dwyer and so could not be sure that he was not concussed.

The nature of this contact is dangerous, and as such has no place in the game. It is submitted that the actions of Mr McIlorum were intentional and not just reckless and the failure to demonstrate a duty of care could have caused Mr Dwyer serious harm. It is fortunate that having already struck the Player forcefully in the tackle action, that Mr Dwyer did not sustain serious injury as a result of the further contact.

It should also be pointed out at paragraph 6.3.1.4 of the On Field Sentencing Guidelines that if an incident has caused a Player to suffer a concussive injury, this should be treated as an aggravated injury. Whilst there was not a concussion as such on this occasion, it is submitted that the fact that the Player was on the floor with a potential concussion should be treated as an aggravating factor.

The MRP felt this was a very serious matter and worthy of a Grade F charge. The Panel had no hesitation in grading this a Grade F offence, the recommended minimum sanction for which is an 8 match suspension and it is respectfully submitted that this sanction should be retained.

The MRP do not intend to rely on any comparable clip. It is the opinion of the MRP that instances such as this should attract the most severe Grade possible due to the obvious danger that these sort of actions may have to a player’s health.

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 informed the panel that the player was making an attempt to get the player up. This happened after he had withdrawn from the initial tackle. The incident happened at a crucial point in the game and questioned how the MRP could bring the charge as they could not know the player knew his opponent was injured.

The player heard the opponent talking to him after the initial tackle and though that he was feigning his injury. He explained he was getting him up so he could play the ball and was 100% sure that he was not concussed.

SM added that he felt a Grade F was a very serious charge and one that could rule a player out for a third of a season. He felt the player only slightly picked his opponent up and that the opponent did not have to leave the field after the incident. This proved that he had not suffered any concussion and that the MRP had come to the grade of the incident after following only a couple of other similar incidents over the last few seasons.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Reasons for Decision:

In relation to this incident it is accepted that this was behaviour contrary to the spirit of the game.

What was clear was that he had made contact with the face or head or Mr Dwyer. This was reinforced by a contemporaneous complaint by Dwyer that he had been hit. Whilst it may have led Mr McIlorum to conclude that Dwyer was not unconscious, he could not have known or it seems cared whether he was injured and to what extent instead. He decided that he had been faking an injury to gain an advantage and in frustration deliberately laid hands on him and lifted his shoulders from the floor.

This is wholly unacceptable. It is not for a player to make a decision about the extent of any injury and there is always a possibility that in behaving like he did he was aggravating any injury. Additionally, it was a highly inflammatory act.

That said it is not in our view comparable to the Nicholson clip (Keighley v York) – which was sustained and much more serious. Accordingly, we do not view this as a Grade F offence

However, this demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for a fellow professional and is worthy of a significant Grading. We therefore grade it at Grade D and take the view that 4 matches is the appropriate penalty.

In the light of findings and the issue of totality – we do not assess the challenge to the penalty (ON/637/20) as frivolous and accordingly do not impose a further match. However, there is a £500 fine for the first offence and the club will need to forfeit their £500 challenge bond.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Suspension:

4 matches