Case Detail
Case Number:
ON/458/22
Harry Swarbrick #3, North Wales
Competition:
Challenge Cup
Match:
North Wales Crusaders v Sheffield Eagles
Match Date:
2022-03-12
Incident:
Biting an Opponent
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:
Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 17 March 2022, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(i) during the above Match.
The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 1:37:47 SharePoint time of the above match after which you were placed on report. In the Panel’s opinion there is evidence to support the allegation that you bit an opponent. The Panel believe that your actions were unnecessary, against the spirit of the game and had the potential to injure your opponent.
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 a 4 - 8 Match Suspension.
• MRP reviewed an incident which took place in approx. 72nd minute
• The matter was immediately reported by the opponent Mr Halafihi and the matter was placed on report
• The footage shows Mr Swarbrick on his front having been tackled by numerous Sheffield players
• Mr Halafihi’s hand is within the vicinity of Mr Swarbrick’s head as he is holding his opponent down
• Mr Swarbrick can be seen to move his head towards Mr Halafihi’s hand in the tackle
• There is a clear reaction from Mr Halafihi after the incident
• There is an immediate report to the referee
• Mr Halafihi is clearly incensed by what has happened.
• Brings the sport into disrepute.
• Potential for injury.
• Graded E due to;
- Unnecessary contact
- An injury has occurred to the opponent
- Based on the referees report, it would appear to be a fleeting bite given the nature of the injury
- Brings sport into disrepute – poor image of the sport
- Players have right when they enter the field of play to expect such acts do not occur
Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Player in attendance alongside Ian Edwards (Chair). Player pleads Not Guilty.
IE informed the panel that he felt HS had no case to answer. There was no evidence of a bite and the case has been based on flimsy evidence. The “bite†has not been seen.
HS is unable to move his head as he is being tackled by two opponents and the reaction of the opponent making the allegation cannot be seen to be used as evidence. HS cannot be charged on a reaction from the opponent. The footage does not show anything and there is no clear evidence.
HS talked the panel through the tackle. He explained the second opponent involved in the tackle had his arm around his neck and that the pressure been applied meant he could not move his head. He stated he could not remember his mouth being near the opponent’s hand and he was certainly not the type of person to bite anyone.
IS added that HS had played professionally for two seasons, and this was his first experience of playing in the Challenge Cup. HS felt it was an honour to play against a higher-ranking team and he was enjoying the moment. he was not frustrated – a potential factor given by the opponent – and he has never played against this opponent before.
Decision:
Not Guilty
Reasons for Decision:
From the Referee’s Report we note the opponent complained to the Referee after being tackled, making the allegation that the player had bitten his finger.
The Referee noted the broken skin on the opponent’s little finger on his right hand but accepts he had not seen anything during the tackle, hence placing the allegation on report.
The Report from the Touch Judge confirms that he saw broken skin on the opponent’s finger. However, the Referee does not give an opinion as to whether it is or is not consistent with a bite type mark.
Both the player and opponent gave credible evidence.
Given that biting is a serious allegation and the evidence before us we do not find that the allegation was proved to the required standard of proof – greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt with due regard to the seriousness of the allegation which is being made.