Case Number:

ON/651/22

Ben Johnson #6, Doncaster

Competition:

League 1

Match:

Doncaster v Swinton

Match Date:

2022-04-10

Incident:

Dissent

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Details of Charge / Reason for NFA:
Law 15.1 (f)

Questioning the integrity of a Match Official

Grade D

Fine:

£75

Sanctions:

3-5

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Not Guilty

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

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

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 52:25 SharePoint time of the above match. You were dismissed following the incident. In the Panel’s opinion you used foul and abusive language towards a match official and questioned the integrity of the match official. The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary and constitute misconduct.


In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade D offence. The normal suspension range for such offence is a 3 to 5 matches period or period suspension.

• MRP reviewed an incident which took place in approx. 17th minute.
• Mr Powell was dismissed following the incident.
• The Touch Judge reported this to the Match Referee.
• The reports stated the following: In approximately the 17th minute Swinton had the ball around 10m out from the Doncaster goal line. The Doncaster number 6 Ben Johnston didn’t like that I didn’t award a forward pass and proceeded to call me a Cheating *******. Swinton scored off the next tackle, as I was running to the mark he again called me a Cheating *******. I informed referee James Vella of what had been said and he proceeded to dismiss the player from the field.
• The footage shows the opponent look towards the touch judge after an incident and says something towards him.
• Mr Johnston is then seen to be moving towards the goal posts and the Touch Judge comes from that direction towards the Match Referee to bring something to his attention
• Use of the word “Cheating” clearly questions the integrity of the Match Officials

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

Player in attendance alongside Carl Hall (CEO). Player pleads Not Guilty.

Player admits using the expression that was reported more than once, the first of which was said earlier in the game to an opponent who he felt was play acting.

The player also admitted using the expression again on the two occasions as reported by the Touch Judge, however, he said that the Touch Judge had misunderstood the context and that he was repeating the comment about the opponent.

Decision:

Guilty

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

• Graded D due to;
- 2 incidents of questioning the integrity of the match officials.
- Poor image to the game.
- Brings the sport into disrepute.
- Breach of the RESPECT policy.

Aggravating Factors:

12/04/18 – Punching (Grade A)
04/09/17 – Tripping (Grade A)

Reasons for Decision:

In about the 17th minute of the above game Ben Johnston (BJ) was sent off the field of play (red carded) for using foul & abusive language towards a Match Official (the Touch Judge, TJ).

This incident involved Swinton scoring a try and a play leading up to that try.

In the play or so before that try TJ says that BJ was aggrieved that he (TJ) did not award a forward pass against Swinton. He expressed his unhappiness, says TJ, by calling him a “Cheating *******”. TJ said that he was willing to overlook that transgression as an act of frustration.

When Swinton subsequently scored a try from a play very soon after that incident, and when TJ was going into the In Goal area to judge the conversion, TJ says that BJ again called him a “Cheating *******”. On this second occasion TJ could not overlook the matter and reported it to the referee.

It was a dry and sunny day. TJ says that he was near BJ on both occasions and BJ definitely addressed the remarks to him whilst looking at him in the process.

The referee was further away in the field of play and did not hear the comments but he acted upon what TJ told him after the second of the comments. The referee reports that BJ apologised to him after the game had finished which provides some support for the accuracy of what TJ says happened.

BJ gave evidence to the Tribunal. He was an unimpressive witness who gave unrealistic and often confusing & contradictory evidence.

He admitted that he had used the expression “Cheating *******” more than once. He said he had used it early in the game when he directly addressed the remark to one of the Swinton players who he thought was play acting.

He also admitted using the expression again on the two occasions reported by TJ. However, he said that TJ had misunderstood the context in which he made these further references to “Cheating *******” and also to whom he made them. Essentially, he was repeating the comment (“Cheating *******”) about the Swinton players which TJ misunderstood as being directed to him.

Firstly, the first of the two comments reported by TJ was made to, and about, a Swinton player. It was coincidentally made near the touchline where TJ happened to be positioned. However, that innocent explanation does not square with common sense and the film footage. BJ is clearly aggrieved by what he considered to be a forward pass that TJ considered to be a flat, not forward, pass. BJ clearly addresses himself to RT and not to any Swinton player. Further, it does not make sense that BJ would have been addressing himself to a Swinton player at that point because no Swinton player could feasibly be said to have cheated even if the pass was slightly forward. Therefore, the Tribunal is inevitably driven to the conclusion, as alleged by TJ’s clear and simple evidence, that BJ did call him a “Cheating *******” on this first occasion.

Having clearly found that BJ made that remark to TJ by the touchline, the Tribunal also finds that he repeated it again a few minutes later to TJ as he went into the In Goal area following Swinton scoring a try. Although this part of what happened is not caught on film as the camera was pointing elsewhere, the Tribunal cannot begin to accept BJ’s wholly unrealistic explanation that TJ just happened to hear him again say “Cheating *******” as no more than a comment that he made to his own teammates about a Swinton player. TJ’s clear evidence that BJ made the comment to him and looked at him when doing so is credible in itself and entirely consistent with the rest of the evidence.

In these circumstances, contrary to 15.1(f) of the Sentencing Guidelines, BJ clearly (a) used “Foul &/or Abusive Language towards a Match Official” (indeed he did so twice) and (b) further in doing so he “Questioned the integrity of a Match Official.” Respectively, these two offences carry a range of suspension between Grade B-D and B-F.

For a Grade D offence a range of 3-5 match suspension is commended and for a Grade E offence a range of 4-8 match suspension is commended.

Although BJ does not have a bad disciplinary history, his failure to accept his responsibility here and the fact that he repeated the comment questioning the official’s integrity means that he must now be suspended for 5 matches and fined £75.

Suspension:

5 matches