Case Detail
Case Number:
ON/671/22
Brad Fash #17, Hull FC
Competition:
Super League
Match:
Hull KR v Hull FC
Match Date:
2022-04-15
Incident:
Biting
Decision:
Charge
Charge Detail:
Law 15.1 (i) Behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game
Biting
Grade E
Sanctions:
5-8
Decision On Charge
Player plea:
Not Guilty
Summary of CM's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 16 April 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 1:26:49 Opta time of the above match. The incident was placed on report. In the Panel’s opinion you have bitten the opponent. The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary, against the spirit of the game and had the potential to cause injury.
In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade E offence - Biting. The normal suspension range for such offence is a 4 to 8 matches period or period suspension.
• MRP reviewed an incident which took place in approx. 68th minute
• The matter was immediately reported by the opponent Mr Minchella and the matter was placed on report
• The footage shows Mr Fash on his front having been tackled by numerous Hull KR players
• Mr Minchella’s hand is within the vicinity of Mr Fash’s head as he is holding his opponent down
• Mr Fash can be seen to move his head towards Mr Minchella’s hand in the tackle
• There is a clear reaction from Mr Minchella after the incident
• There is an immediate report to the referee
• Mr Minchella is clearly incensed by what has happened and pushes Mr Fash in the head.
• Incident 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 James Clark (CEO) and Gordon Sewell (Legal Rep). Player pleads Not Guilty.
The club talked through the tackle. Whilst they accept the BF’s head initially moves towards the position of EM’s hand the movement is not exaggerated as one would expect from a player who is intent on biting an opponent. BF is engaged in a heavy tackle with two players on his back, one of whom applied unnatural pressure to his left arm and shoulder. In these circumstances it cannot be assumed that BF put his head down with the intention of biting. On the contrary there is movement of EM’s hand towards BF’s mouth and there is no evidence that a bite actually took place.
There is no exaggerated jaw movement or clear opening of the mouth that would suggest a bit is or is about to take place.
Decision:
Not Guilty
Reasons for Decision:
In the second half of this game Brad Fash (BF) was tackled with the ball and he was taken to the ground with some opposing players around him.
One of those opposing players (Elliot Minchella - EM), who was on top of BF with BF facing downwards to the ground, had his left hand in the area of BF’s mouth. BF stood up and played the ball.
At that same point in time EM pushed BF. The referee sought to take action about that push and EM then remonstrated that he had been bitten on the hand by BF. EM showed the referee and the linesman his hand but there was no visible injury.
In evidence to the Tribunal EM said that he had been bitten which explained his reactions. He could not see the contact between his hand and BF’s mouth because BF’s body was between he was behind BF. He says he felt contact with a gum shield and bare teeth and his finger was hurt. This explained his reaction by hitting BF on the back of the head on the ground and then pushing him when they had both stood up. He said that he thought he had been bitten although he also said that his “finger caught something … in minimal time of contact … it was possible that it could have been a coming together of his hand and BF’s mouth but I think it was a bite.â€
In evidence to the Tribunal BF said that he had not bitten EM. He had not had any sensation about his mouth area in what was a pretty straightforward and ordinary tackle. He did not deliberately bite. He would never do such a thing (something supported by James Clark, the Hull CEO, who has known BF for several years during his rugby league career).
The footage of the game does show EM’s hand in the area of BF’s mouth as he was on the ground facing downwards with EM behind and on top of him. BF is moving generally and his head is also in motion. The RFL suggest that BF moved his mouth towards/at EM’s hand. BF says that he was moving for no other reason than to seek to play the ball quickly. As the footage was slowed down one can see BF’s head in motion downwards but also as contact is made with EM’s hand his hand is actually moving upwards towards BF’s face. In any event the footage does not show an actual biting.
Each of the two players here (EM & BF) gave fair and credible evidence. Neither one of them could be said to be untruthful. EM felt that he had been bitten and that was a genuine reaction to the coming together of his hand and BF’s face. BF’s evidence that he did not, nor would he, bite EM or any other player was also very credible. Further, it is very difficult to see what motivation BF would have had to bite in the unremarkable circumstances of this particular tackle.
In these circumstances the Tribunal is not satisfied to the relatively high standard of proof that is required to secure a conviction for this sort of serious allegation. There is no evidence of a bite injury and the footage does not show an actual bite, although it suggests a coming together of EM’s hand and BF’s mouth.