Case Number:

ON/766/22

Jack Cogger #16, Huddersfield

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Warrington v Huddersfield

Match Date:

2022-04-23

Incident:

Other Contrary Behaviour

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (i)

Other Contrary Behaviour – Use of Knees

Grade C

Fine:

£500

Sanctions:

2 Match Penalty Notice

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Guilty, but challenge the grading

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 25 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 00:19:00 Opta Time of the above match. You were sin binned following the incident. In the Panel’s opinion you made unnecessary contact with an opponent’s head with your leg after the opponent had scored a try. 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 – under Law 15.1 (i) Other Contrary Behaviour (leading with a knee/s into a tackle).

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

• Incident occurs in approximately the 19th minute
• Player is sin binned following the incident
• The referee’s report stated the following: In the 19th minute, Thewliss of Warrington reached out and scored a try. After he grounded the ball Cogger dived in knees first and made direct contact with the head of Thewliss. This contact with the head was with the knee. I awarded an 8 point try and sent Mr Cogger to the sin bin for the use of the knee
• Opponent has already scored a try when the player is still upright
• Player can clearly see this to be the case that the opponent has scored a try
• Player then goes to ground after the act of scoring and leads with the right knee up
• The right knee makes heavy contact with the opponents head
• Opponent is in a vulnerable position as they do not expect that type of contact
• Act is very reckless and totally unnecessary

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

Player in attendance alongside Andy Kelly (Rugby Manager). Player pleads Guilty but challenges the grading.

AK informed the panel the opponent involved was not hurt in the incident and indeed went on to win the man-of-the-match. The club feel that JC did not make contact with his knees first, although they agree that contact was made.

JC made a movement away from the opponent to try and avoid him and any contact made was by the thigh of JC has he tried to avoid contact.

JC then talked the panel though the incident. He explained he had just returned to the field following a sin-binning and that he had played the game for over 20 years and had never had any disciplinary issues before.

He explained that the initial contact was made with his hands and that he was trying to reduce the force of any contact when he realised he could not prevent the try. He was trying to roll over the top of the opponent and though contact was made there was no intent. He also felt the opponent saw him coming and turned away slightly.

AK felt that the comparison clip (Jowitt – Wakefield v Leeds – Grade C) was more aggressive and more contact was made. He felt that JC had reacted reasonably to try and avoid or limit the impact of any collision.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

• Grade C due to:
- Highly reckless
- Unnecessary act
- Opponent is in a vulnerable position. Does not expect that type of contact
- Potential for serious injury. Player makes contact with the opponent’s head
- Actions sit outside what is permitted within the Laws of the Game

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal thank both side for their submissions.

Having watched the footage the panel are struggling to accept that this was a legitimate attempt to get under the ball. It is clear to the panel that the opponent has grounded the ball when Mr Cogger begins to crouch and come towards him. There was in the Tribunals view no conceivable way that he could have got between the ball and the man.

We are struggling to accept that this was a legitimate attempt to get under the ball here- having watched the clip it is clear to us that Thewlis has grounded the ball when MR Cogger begins to crouch and come towards him there was in our view no conceivable way that he could have got between the ball and the man. Mr Cogger came towards the opponent at speed and made no attempt to avoid the collision and there was always an obvious risk that there would be contact with the head of the opponent who was in a vulnerable position.

The Tribunal cannot be sure that he made contact with his knees, however, it seems he made some contact with part of his leg and with some force at a time when the opponent was in a vulnerable position. This was a highly reckless act.

The Tribunal are comfortably satisfied the grading at Grade C was appropriate for the charge in all the circumstances.

For what it’s worth the Tribunal take the view that the MRP were lenient in charging a Grade C for the comparison clip (Jowitt – Wakefield v Leeds). We agree that this offence was more serious than this one given that he dropped directly onto the try scorers head with his knees, an act which without explanation from the player appeared to us to be more serious than this case.

The Tribunal therefore feel that the challenge to the imposed penalty notice is indeed frivolous. The player will therefore be suspended for 3 matches and fined £500. The club will also lose the £500 bond for bringing the challenge.

Suspension:

3 matches