Case Number:

ON/136/22

Oliver Holmes #12, Warrington

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Leeds v Warrington

Match Date:

2022-02-12

Incident:

High tackle at 1 11 35

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (b)

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

Grade B

Fine:

£500

Sanctions:

1 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 1 11 35 Opta time of the above Match. You were sin binned 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 B 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 1 to 2 matches.

• Incident occurs in approximately the 47th minute
• Player is sin binned following the incident
• Opponent is returning the ball from a goal line drop out
• Player is coming across to affect a tackle
• Contact is direct to the opponents head with the forearm
• It is accepted that Mr Holmes 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
• Grade B due to:
- Unnecessary direct contact with the head
- Time to adapt when making the tackle
- Contact forceful but more of a grabbing action
- 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:

OH in attendance alongside Daryl Powell (Head Coach) and Kylie Leuluai (Head of Rugby) and pleads guilty but challenges the grading.

DP explained to the panel that they had thought long and hard about whether to challenge the imposed penalty notice.

They believe that the tackle was careless rather than reckless and that the tackle happens at a fast speed. They agree that contact is made to the neck but that the stepping off the opponent contributed to this, and the opponent was fresh on to the field and OH had been on the pitch for the duration of the game. They feel it was not reckless and there was no intent. OH has a flat hand when making the challenge and the club work hard on their tackling technique. This was fractions away from being a good tackle and there is no direct contact to the head.

OH reiterated what DP had already said. He confirmed he was fatigued having been on from the start and that at the time his team were under pressure. He tried to tackle higher – rather than around the legs – as he was trying to complete a tackle which would mean he could slow the ruck down. His opponent had stepped on to his outside shoulder and that he had no intention to cause harm and it was unintentional.

The club introduced a comparison clip (Thornley – Grade A). They felt that the charge they were contesting was not as bad as this one and were just trying to ask for consistency.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal were asked to consider the Match Review Panel grading of an incident in the Leeds v Warrington game on the 12th of February 2022.

This was a challenge only to improper grading. The Tribunal felt that the player’s position was always high and there was an arm swinging towards and connecting directly with the neck of the attacking player.

The Tribunal felt that other options in terms of tackle selection were available. No adaptions were made by the player and whilst it was submitted and accepted that this was at the lower end of the reckless scale it still fell fairly and squarely within the reckless scale.

There was forceful impact and was accepted by both sides that this was not an intentional strike.

The Match Review Panel graded this as Grade B and imposed a one-match suspension. The comparable clip shown in this case was not considered of use to the Tribunal. The comparable clip showed a different position on the pitch, at the try line where different decisions and considerations come into force.

The incident that the Tribunal were assessing was from a goal line dropout (a controlled re-start) and in the comparable clip there is a significant change of direction by the attacker and the tackler appears to make initial contact with the back of the attacking player before the arm goes up towards the neck and head area.

The Tribunal felt that this was a frivolous challenge given the tackle was quite clearly round the neck area and under rule 8.2.2 applying the test for recklessness the contact will be reckless “if the player is or ought to be aware of any obvious risk of danger or harm…” That is clearly the case here.

As such the initial one-match suspension was increased to a two-match suspension and £500 fine imposed.

Suspension:

2 matches