Case Detail
Case Number:
ON/794/21
Jamie Dallimore #6, Barrow
Competition:
League 1
Match:
Keighley vs Barrow
Match Date:
2021-07-11
Incident:
Biting in the 77th minute
Decision:
Charge
Charge Detail:
Law 15.1 (i)
Other Contrary Behaviour – Biting
Grade E
Sanctions:
4-8
Decision On Charge
Player plea:
Not Guilty
Summary of CM's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in approximately the 77th minute of the above Match. The incident was placed on report. In the Panel’s opinion you contact you have bitten your opponent The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary, had the potential to cause injury and 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 E offence – Other Contrary Behaviour – Biting. The normal suspension range for such offence is from 4 to an 8 Match Suspension.
• MRP reviewed an incident which took place in approx. 77th minute
• The matter was immediately reported by the opponent Mr Moran and the matter was placed on report
• The footage shows Mr Dallimore on his back and Mr Moran over him
• Mr Moran’s arm is within the vicinity of Mr Dallimore’s head as he is holding his opponent down
• Mr Dallimore can be seen to lift his head towards Mr Moran’s arm
• There is a clear reaction from Mr Moran after the incident
• There is an immediate report to the referee
• There is photographic evidence to show marks on Mr Moran’s arms in the days after the match
• Brings the sport into disrepute
• Potential for injury
• Graded E due to:
- Unnecessary contact
- Fleeting action
- Potential for injury
- Brings sport into disrepute – poor image of the sport
Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Player in attendance alongside Steve Neale (Chairman). Player pleads Not Guilty.
The opponent joined the meeting and was questioned by both sides and the Tribunal. He talked through the incident and felt that the player did open his mouth and he felt what he thought was a bite at the time in the completion of the tackle.
JD told the panel that this kind of incident did not belong in the game. He explained he had paid for a Dental Analysis to assist his case and that he had had to cope with been charged with this since last week. He strongly protested his innocence.
He does not wear a gum shield when he plays and felt that a bite would have shown more marks to the opponent’s arm. He also felt that the opponent would have reacted more had he been bitten, rather than just tapping him on the head.
He explained he was trying to regain his feet whilst the opponent was on top of him with his arm across his face. He felt that the tribunal would need to be 100% sure about this such was the seriousness of the charge and potential suspension.
SN added that he felt the footage was inconclusive. He felt the expert report that the club had provided proved to be compelling and the club were not questioning the integrity of the opponent. However, he stressed that that the player should surely have the benefit of doubt as the footage also proves to be inconclusive. Any suspension handed out would be big and he supported the player as he was of good character.
Decision:
Not Guilty
Reasons for Decision:
The Tribunal thank both sides for their submissions and have considered those as well as the footage, the report submitted by the club and seen photos of the opponent’s arm.
Having taken all of the above into account they cannot say that they are comfortably satisfied that the player has been deliberately bitten. They do not disbelieve the player when he says he felt some sort of discomfort at the time of the tackle, however, in the heat of the moment it could have been accidental.
They therefore find the player not guilty.