Case Number:

ON/796/22

Kallum Watkins #3, Salford

Competition:

Super League

Match:

St Helens v Salford

Match Date:

2022-04-29

Incident:

Late hit on kicker

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (i)

Dangerous Contact - A defending player makes contact with an opponent after the ball has been released by an opponent in a vulnerable position which causes flexion to the head, neck or spinal column on an attacking player, which poses an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.

Grade B

Fine:

£500

Sanctions:

1 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 02 May 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 00:15:17 Opta time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you contacted an opponent after the ball had been released causing flexion to the head/neck area. 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 B offence – Dangerous Contact - A defending player makes contact with an opponent after the ball has been released by an opponent in a vulnerable position which causes flexion to the head, neck or spinal column on an attacking player, which poses an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.

The normal suspension range for such offence is from 1 to 2 matches.

• MRP reviewed an incident which took place at 12 59 of the footage time.
• The footage shows Mr Watkins come into contact with his opponent Mr Lomax who is kicking the ball.
• Mr Watkins is late with his contact.
• There is no attempt to moderate the contact.
• Player approaches at significant speed thus not allowing him to moderate the nature of his contact.
• This is not an attempt to tackle.
• Mr Lomax is vulnerable as both legs are off the floor at the point of contact.
• There is potential for such incidents to cause serious injuries to opponents.

With regard to the comparison clip (Pearce-Paul – Wigan v St Helens 2021) the CM explained that this was a front on tackle and not shoulder charge. Whilst the player is later into contact than KW there is a wrapping motion and also that the opponent can see the player coming and can moderate accordingly.

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

Player in attendance alongside Paul Rowley (Head Coach) and Ian Blease (Rugby Director). Player pleads Guilty but challenges the grading.

PR talked through the incident and explained that the club felt that contact was not excessive. He felt that contact was unavoidable, and that KW was applying kick pressure and had his hands facing down as he tried to charge down the kick.

PR felt that the opponent also had a responsibility to avoid contact and that KW did not follow through with the challenge. The also pointed out that KW was possibly 20 inches away from the opponent when the ball left his foot and that KW had just a split second to react.

The club believed that there was no flexion to the head/neck of the opponent and any contact was glancing. The opponent immediately gets to his feet and the club believe him juggling the ball also encourages KW. KW has his eyes on the ball at all times.

KW then talked through the incident. He explained he was trying to apply some kick pressure and his arms were out to stop the ball. he felt it was an honest challenge and a joint collision between the two.

IB explained that the player had a good previous disciplinary record. The club also introduced a comparison clip (Pearce-Paul – Wigan v St Helens 2021) which was graded as a Caution.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

• Graded B due to;
- Vulnerability of the opponent.
- Reckless, not careless. Player had other means in which to safely complete the tackle.
- Speed of approach leaves player no time to moderate nature of contact
- No attempt to tackle
- Players have a duty of care to their opponents.

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal thank both sides for their submissions.

It was accepted by this player and his club that he had made dangerous contact with Jonny Lomax as he sought to exert “kick pressure” and charge down a kick. It was accepted that that contact was late, albeit not “that” late.

A comparative film from last season was shown which it was argued showed a worse contact with the kicker than this current case and yet that contact resulted in no more than a Caution. It was clear that that contact was later than this current case.

It was pointed out in mitigation that Lomax fumbled the ball as he received the pass and that meant that Watkins was enjoined to try and make ground quickly to him as the opportunity to challenge the kicker presented itself with that fumble.

It was further pointed out that Watkins did not approach Lomax front on but rather from a more oblique angle and that the final contact was not full onto Lomax. It was said that Watkins had his arms down to charge the ball not the kicker and was looking at the ball not the kicker.

The camera was some distance away and it was not that easy to see the fine points of what exactly happened on the film. For instance, it was difficult to make out much flexion of Lomax’s neck. Although he went mainly forwards in the contact (as opposed to a backwards movement and consequent whiplash flexion) there was nevertheless seemingly some limited flexion.

Further, it was said that Watkins has a good disciplinary record.

These were proper and reasonable points to make in mitigation which the Tribunal accepts.

The Tribunal does not accept the Salford argument that Lomax was at fault in what he did and the Tribunal rejects the argument that he bore some responsibility for what happened here. The responsibility must fall squarely on the shoulders of the player exerting kick pressure to ensure that he did not make dangerous contact with the kicker.

In these circumstances the Tribunal accepts this case is better classified as a Grade A offence. That Grading means a suspension of 0-1 matches. In the same way that the Match Review Panel took the lower grading of the two possible penalties (given Watkins good disciplinary record) the Tribunal does the same with this reclassification.

Therefore, there will here be 0 matches for suspension together with a fine of £500.

Suspension:

0 matches