Case Number:

ON/133/22

James Bentley #11, Leeds

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Leeds v Warrington

Match Date:

2022-02-12

Incident:

High tackle at 16 08

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (b)

High Tackle – Reckless – Tried to tackle but reckless about outcome

Grade C

Fine:

£500

Sanctions:

3 Match Penalty Notice

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Guilty, but challenges the grading

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 14th February 2022, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(b) during the above Match.

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 16 08 Opta time of the above Match. You were dismissed following the incident. In the Panel’s opinion you made contact with the head or neck of your opponent when making a tackle. The Panel believed that your actions 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 C offence – When tackling or attempting to tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent – Reckless – Reckless – tried to tackle but reckless about outcome.

The normal suspension range for such offence is from 2 to 3 matches.

• Incident occurs in approximately the 16th minute
• Player is dismissed following the incident
• Opponent has broken through the line
• Player is coming across to affect a tackle
• Contact is direct to the opponents head with the forearm
• It is accepted that Mr Bentley is attempting to complete a tackle
• The player has time to ensure he does not make contact with the opponents head
• No adaptions are made in this regard
• The player enters the contact at speed which generates more force in the contact to the head
• Grade C due to:
- Unnecessary direct contact with the head
- Time to adapt when making the tackle
- Forceful contact
- Potential for serious injury
- Clubs have been warned about head contacts in previous Head Coaches meetings and in communication prior to the start of both the 2021 and 2022 season

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

JB in attendance alongside Richard Agar (Head Coach) and James Bletsoe (Head of Analysis) and pleads guilty but challenges the grading.

RA concurred with the Compliance Manager and agreed with the new rules that were brought in to help deal with player safety. The club seriously considered whether to challenge the penalty notice and sort the views of a former Referee.

They felt that JB did not swing the arm and that he had to approach at pace to make the tackle. The opponent loses his legs and is falling and JB does not use a clenched fist. JB tries to tackle properly although the tackle could have been clumsy. The opponent is dipping and does not require any treatment and played on.

The club brought a Comparison clip in (Currie – Grade A) which they felt showed contact to the head and had caused the opponent to receive concussion.

JB talked through the tackle and explained he made it at full speed with his feet on the floor. The opponent dipped and there was no clenched fist or swinging arm. He was trying to wrap the player up.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Aggravating Factors:

23/08/21 – Strikes – kicking (Grade A – 1 match)
07/09/20 – Dangerous Contact – (Grade A)
17/02/20 – Dangerous Contact (Caution)

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal heard representations in respect of an alleged breach of rule 15.1(b) in that the Match Review Panel had assessed this to be a Grade C offence of a “reckless tackle making contact with the head or neck of the opponent when making a tackle in that the player tried to tackle but was reckless about the outcome.”

There was a guilty plea and a challenge only to the grading. The Tribunal felt that the tackle was correctly graded though we accepted there was no clenched fist or no swinging arm. They also accepted that this was not an intentional act by the player but was reckless. There were other options he could have taken, for example tackling the opponent lower down his body. There was unnecessary contact with the head and the player had time to adapt. The contact was forceful and there was poor tackle selection.

When considering the comparable clip the Tribunal did not feel that it was comparable and therefore was difficult to assess its use. The comparable clip shown was of a player tackling his opponent with who was at the time under a high kick. The Tribunal felt the circumstances of the tackle were considerably different than that which were been considered. The present case was a “chasing back” tackle. Mr Agar for the club accepted in his representations that they were different tackles.

Suspension:

4 matches