Case Number:

ON/251/21

Gill Dudson #8, Catalans

Competition:

Challenge Cup

Match:

Catalans v Warrington

Match Date:

2021-05-07

Incident:

Dangerous Contact in the 6th minute

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (i)
Dangerous Contact - Defender uses any part of their body forcefully to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.
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 10th May 2021, 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 6th minute of the above Match. You were temporarily dismissed from the field of play following the incident. In the Panel’s opinion in making a tackle you applied pressure to the arm of 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 (Dangerous Contact - Defender uses any part of their body forcefully to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.). The normal suspension range for such offence is from a 1 to 2 Match Suspension.

In response to the comparable clip (Drinkwater – Wakefield v Catalans) the CM explained that the MRP felt there were a number of differences, including the speed at which the tackle was made, the releasing of the pressure from the player involved and some minimal impact from other team mates involved in the tackle.

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

Player in attendance alongside Steve McNamara (Head Coach) and Alex Chan (Sporting Director).

SM felt that the initial contact was instigated by the opponent as he entered the collision. The felt that the player released his grip and then grabbed the shirt of the opponent and was not forcing any pressure on to the arm. He explained that the player had left space for the opponents arm to come out and that the player was using his body to try and turn the opponent over. No extra pressure was applied and if it had been the charge would have been a more serious grading.

The added that no injury occurred and that both players played a part in how the incident ended. No blame should be attached to either the player of his opponent, and indeed the player was not aware that it had been him that had been penalised on completion of the tackle.

The club then introduced a Grade A comparable clip (Drinkwater – Wakefield v Catalans).

The CM felt that the challenge against the imposed penalty notice was frivolous and that an extra game should therefore be added. The CM felt the footage showed that the player was in control at all times throughout the incident and could have completed the tackle in a different way. This was a reckless act.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Reasons for Decision:

This is a challenge to penalty notice in respect of Dangerous Contact. Guilt is accepted, however, the challenge is to the grading.

It is submitted that Mr King was initially the cause of his arm being in the position it ended up in, thereafter it is said this was not a reckless act and that Mr Dudson was careless in applying the pressure that he did and that he made attempts to alleviate the pressure on Mr Kings arm by changing his grip and latterly making space for his arm to get through.

What we cannot accept is that this was merely careless.

It is important to point out that Mr Dudson was at all times in control of the tackle. It was apparent to him also that Mr King’s arm was in a difficult position, being effectively trapped against his shoulder, but rather than release his grip on Mr King, Mr Dudson began to push against the natural movement of the arm in order to slow down the ruck and take Mr King onto his back. This should have presented to Mr Dudson an obvious risk that Mr King’s arm could be injured.

Judging by the reaction of those around it was obvious to them just how dangerous a position Mr Kings arm was in. It was not in our view reasonable for him to continue to apply pressure whilst his arm was in that position. Such was the position of the arm and the fact pressure was being applied against its natural movement it was impossible for Mr King to get his arm free.

When he failed to free his arm Mr Dudson should have released his grip. Players have a duty of care towards their opponents to ensure that they do not place them in a dangerous position or if they are in such a position to ensure that they do not remain there. Mr Dudson failed in that duty.

This was clearly a reckless act and appropriately graded at Grade B.

With regards to the Grade A comparable clip introduced by the club (Drinkwater – Wakefield v Catalans) the Tribunal felt that the player was not entirely in control of that situation as other players were involved. They also feel that pressure was not applied for as long or with the same degree of force.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

• MRP reviewed an incident which took place in approx. 6th minute
• Player was temporarily dismissed following the incident
• MRP were concerned at the manner in which Mr Dudson makes contact with his opponent.
• Opponent Mr King takes the ball forward and promotes him arm out towards Mr Dudson.
• Mr Dudson has a hold of his opponents shirt with his left arm below and right arm above his opponent arm
• Mr King’s arm is effectively trapped in between
• Mr Dudson attempts to turn his opponent using initially his body then his arms
• The arm is taken outside its range of normal movement and pressure is applied
• An injury has occurred to the opponent
• This contact was reckless and dangerous
• Players have a duty of care to their opponents
• Graded B due to;
- Arm is taking out of its normal range of movement for a significant period of time
- Player is aware the opponents arm is there
- Player has time to consider options

Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

The club feel that this was not an unreasonable or frivolous challenge to the imposed penalty notice. They feel it was not reckless and that the comparison clip they had brought was a genuine comparison which had occurred just seven days before and resulted in a lower grade being imposed.

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal are in agreement that the challenge to the imposed penalty notice was not frivolous in this instance.

They do however feel that it is a clear Grade B offence and that there were differences in the comparison clip that was shown.

They therefore impose a 1 match suspension and £500 fine. The club will also lose it’s £500 bond for bringing the challenge.

Suspension:

1 match