Case Number:

ON/136/21

Andy Ackers #9, Salford

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Catalans v Salford

Match Date:

2021-04-17

Incident:

Tripping in the 42nd minute

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (a)
Tripping – Intentional Trip
Grade B

Fine:

£500

Sanctions:

1 Match Penalty Notice

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Guilty, but challenge the grading

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 19th April 2021, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(a) during the above Match.

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in approximately the 42nd minute of the above Match. In the Panel’s opinion you intentionally tripped your opponent. The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary and had the potential to cause your opponent injury.

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade B offence (Strikes – Trips – Intentional Trip). The normal suspension range for such offence is from a 1 to a 2 match suspension.

In response to the comparison clip (Austin – Warrington v Huddersfield) the CM explained that the MRP thought this was a reactionary trip and was reckless. The player had his back to play and in order to block his opponent he made his body wider which resulted in the opponent falling over his outstretched leg. The MRP therefore decided to grade it at Grade A.

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

Player represented by Head Coach Richard Marshall and Director of Rugby Ian Blease.

IB informed the panel that this was not an intentional lift of the leg and the player also had his left arm held up as he tried to make the tackle whilst on the ground. He believed it was a natural lift of the legs and was reactionary. There was no force involved, the opponent got straight up and indeed the referee at the time gave a penalty as the player had not cleared the ruck.

He added this was not done on purpose and it was perhaps the players left leg which made the contact and not the right as first thought. The player was trying to get up.

RM then addressed the panel. He explained the player was trying to ruck and could not get out of the way. His thoughts are then to make a tackle and he reiterated it was reactionary and there was no intent involved. He believes the player made the motions to affect a tackle and that the opponent knew what he was doing in order to get a penalty.

The club then introduced a comparison clip (Austin – Warrington v Huddersfield) which was graded at Grade A. They explained they felt this was an intentional trip and indeed it was penalised at the time with the player been sin-binned. They felt that to be consistent the charge been discussed should be graded the same.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Reasons for Decision:

The framework in respect of trips is as follows – if a trip is deemed to be reactionary and reckless it is not considered to be intentional and as such it would be a Grade A offence

If however a trip is a deliberate and intentional act then that trip is automatically a Grade B offence. Accordingly we have to look at the incident involving Mr Ackers and assess whether we are comfortably satisfied that the trip in his case was intentional.

It is clear that the attacking player had picked up the ball from acting half only a very short distance from the Salford try line. It is also clear that with Ackers being on the ground he was unable to do anything to prevent Da Costa advancing to that line. After considering the footage we are of the view that there is no real attempt to tackle Da Costa, instead Ackers raises his feet off the ground to around the height of Da Costa’s knee and this foot then makes contact with the leg and brings him to the ground.

This was in our view a deliberate and intentional act in what to Mr Ackers was a desperate situation with Da Costa being so close to his line. We do not accept that this was simply a reaction or reckless act made whilst trying to effect a tackle. It takes only a moment to form such an intention to act in this way and decisions of how and when to tackle are decisions made in split seconds throughout a game whether it’s a decision that he now regrets or not.

We have some sympathy for the Salford club in respect of the Blake Austin incident in the comparable clip. We are of the view that had that matter come before us afresh today as a charge we would have assessed that too as a deliberate and intentional trip. We are not bound by what we consider to be a previous decision of the MRP and we have to consider Mr Ackers case on its merits.

Accordingly, as an intentional trip the Grading at B is correct under the laws of the game. The challenge is dismissed. The Club will now forfeit £500 and the player must pay £500 fine.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

• MRP reviewed an incident which occurred in approx. the 42nd minute
• The opponent Mr Da Costa picks the ball up from acting half
• The player Mr Ackers is laid next to the ruck having been involved in the previous tackle
• Mr Da Costa steps off his left foot to move away from the ruck
• Mr Ackers initially moves to pull himself way from the ruck
• Mr Ackers then sees Mr Da Costa is moving towards the try line and clearly lifts his legs into the air, tripping his opponent
• There is no attempt to tackle legitimately as the player is in the wrong position to affect such a tackle
• MRP submit this was intentional as Mr Ackers can clearly see the opponent and decides to act in this manner by lifting his leg to stop his opponent
• Duty of care owed to opponents as players do not expect to be tripped when playing the sport of Rugby League

Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

The player has an excellent previous record and the club believe there was no malice involved in this charge. They believe they had a strong case to challenge the penalty notice but accept the decision made.

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal has listened to both sides submissions on whether the charge should be deemed as frivolous. They are in agreement that this should not be the case and therefore an additional match will not be added to the players suspension.

Suspension:

1 match