Case Number:

ON/639/20

Joel Tomkins #12, Catalans

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Leeds v Catalans

Match Date:

2020-11-13

Incident:

Other Contrary Behaviour 55th minute (Myler)

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

15.1 (i)
Other Contrary Behaviour
Grade F

Fine:

£500

Sanctions:

8+

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Not Guilty

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 55th 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 opponent (Myler) who was on the ground following a tackle and you placed your hand/fingers between his buttocks. It can clearly be heard on the referee’s microphone when the opponent is questioned about wanting to make an allegation.The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary, had the potential to cause your opponent 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.

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.

JT talked through the events and said he was mortified and embarrassed about it all. He has played professional rugby for 16 years and would never commit such an act. He explained that in the process of the tackle he was trying to adjust his hands in order to keep his opponent on the floor in order so he could get back to marker. He placed his hands on the lower back to apply pressure and had his head down as he was doing so. He explained about the medical issues he had with his fingers which includes regular treatment for both broken and dislocated fingers. He showed the panel his hand and explained about the limited movement he had and how his fingers were set in a certain position.

SM agreed with his players reaction and felt that there would be a stigma attached to the charge. He felt the player was a genuine character and he was visually upset about the incident after the game. He added he was a good professional who he had also selected for the national side when he was in charge.

Decision:

Guilty

Reasons for Decision:

We say at the outset that this is serious allegation that requires careful consideration – we have two sides that are clearly poles apart.

In the first instance we have Mr Myler who on the field of play makes a clear and unambiguous allegation against Mr Tomkins – it was immediate in time it was forceful in nature and it was repeated.

He was asked did he want to make an allegation by Mr Kendall and he repeated what he had said. For some reason Mr Kendall asked again – perhaps an indication of the unusual nature of the allegation – did he want to make an allegation and he decided that having said it four times to the official and he was still being asked to make it that he wasn’t prepared to engage in this any more

Mr Myler was apparently reluctant to use the words yesterday and write them down, clearly reluctant this evening to repeat the allegation but clear and adamant throughout that what he said to the referee on Friday was true. We can understand this attitude and reluctance given the very sensitive nature of this allegation and the potential stigma attaching to Mr Myler within the game for making an allegation of this sort.

Mr Tomkins account is that nothing of the sort happened and that there was no contact anywhere near his bottom. He was of the opinion that Mr Myler is lying, or Mr Myler is mistaken.

We struggle to see that he could be mistaken given the sensitive and intimate area where contact was made. We cannot accept that this is fabricated as there is no reason that he would fabricate such an unusual and serious allegation against an opponent with whom he had no particular issue. In addition, we consider his reaction was not just immediate but it was emotional and we find it hard to accept that his reaction could have been fabricated. Furthermore, there is support for his account from the recording. We can accept that alone this might be insufficient for the MRP to feel it should bring such a serious charge but it is entirely consistent with Mr Myler’s account.

We have of course considered the evidence on behalf of Mr Tomkins and feel the medical evidence in relation to his fingers does not assist him. The footage appears to support the use of the index finger and the support of his middle fingers which were in any event capable of bending to 90 degrees. The evidence of Mr Parkinson about the apparent concussed condition of Mr Myler is not supported by the evidence of Mr Kendall the match referee

We understand the vehemence of Mr Tomkins denials and the shame and upset that this has caused. We recognise that this is a serious matter and that it calls for a significant standard of proof.
We are satisfied, in fact we are sure, that this incident occurred and that Mr Tomkins placed his finger or fingers between Mr Myler’s buttocks touching his anus. This was not for any sexual gratification but to annoy and irritate his opponent and was a decision he took in the heat of the moment and we accept he instantly denied and regretted.

Accordingly, we find the allegation proved.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

• Player charged under RFL Rule 15.1(i)
• Behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game – Other Contrary Behaviour
• Incident occurred in the 56th minute of the match
• Mr Tomkins’ arm moves unnaturally to the buttock area of his opponent on top of the shorts
• The movement of the arm in this unnatural motion demonstrates intent whether sought to harm or not. The player should be aware of possible outcomes.
• Contact is made on the opponent inappropriately and unnecessarily
• Mr Tomkins’ fingers are pursed
• Footage demonstrates pressure is applied – lead by the right index finger
• Immediate physical reaction from Mr Myler
• Footage clearly shows Mr Tomkins’ hand placed in the area in which Mr Myler reports in the footage
• Report of inappropriate contact is consistent throughout the audio by Mr Myler
• Graded F due to:
- Unnecessary and not part of the game
- Attempt to gain an advantage over an opponent
- Nature of the contact – is deemed to be intentional with pressure applied
- No place in the game for such acts
- Akin to attacks to testicles which also carries a Grade F sanction
- Brings the game into disrepute

Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

JC states the players reputation and record will be forever damaged. This will have a significant impact on him, his family and his club.

The player repeated that this was not intentional, and his career could be finished due to it.

SM confirmed that the player is clearly upset by the decision.

Aggravating Factors:

09/09/19 – Punching (2 matches)
27/05/19 – Dangerous Contact (1 match)
25/02/19 – Dissent (2 matches)
13/06/16 – Dangerous Throw (0 matches)

28/09/20 – Other Contrary Behaviour (Caution)
10/06/19 – Disputes Decision (Caution)
11/02/19 – Dangerous Contact (Caution)

Mitigating Factors:

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal accept that this incident is contrary to the spirit of the game and are of the opinion that it is correctly graded at Grade F.

They therefore impose an 8 match suspension and the standard £500 fine.

Suspension:

8 matches