Case Number:

ON/1186/22

Josh Jordan Roberts #11, Hunslet

Competition:

League 1

Match:

Cornwall RLFC v Hunslet RLFC

Match Date:

2022-07-02

Incident:

Dangerous Contact

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (i)

Dangerous Contact - Defending player, in or after effecting a tackle, uses any part of their body forcefully to bend or apply unnecessary pressure to the head and/or neck and/or spinal column of the tackled player so as to keep the tackled player at a disadvantage in or after the tackle.

Grade D

Fine:

£75

Sanctions:

3-5

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 7 July 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 00:26:26 SharePoint Time of the above match. The incident was placed on report by the referee. In the Panel’s opinion you made a tackle that applied pressure to head/neck/spinal area of your 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 D offence - Dangerous Contact - Defending player, in or after effecting a tackle, uses any part of their body forcefully to bend or apply unnecessary pressure to the head and/or neck and/or spinal column of the tackled player so as to keep the tackled player at a disadvantage in or after the tackle.

The normal suspension range for such offence is a 3 to 5 match suspension.

• MRP were concerned at the manner in which Mr Roberts makes contact with his opponent.
• The incident was placed on report by the match referee.
• Opponent is tackled initially low by Mr Roberts team mate.
• Mr Roberts enters the tackle and takes a grip with the opponent facing away from Mr Roberts.
• Opponent continues to struggle but then would appear to become passive and accepting the tackle is completed.
• Mr Roberts then pulls the opponent tight towards his chest and initiates a grip under the arms of his opponent.
• The opponent then struggles to try to get to the ground, but Mr Roberts holds him and pulls him upwards.
• Mr Roberts then gets his own head in tight to his opponents head, whilst maintaining the grip he has on his opponent then twists the opponent before dropping down on his opponent.
• The player takes one leg off the ground to drop on the opponent.
• The footage shows the head of the opponent being pushed forward towards his own chest before it disappears behind Mr Roberts team mate.
• Mr Roberts maintains his grip at all times, keeping the opponent in tight and the footage shows after the grip is released that the opponents head is clearly pushed in tight to his own chest.
• The MRP submit this shows pressure has been applied to the opponents head and neck area by Mr Roberts.
• Mr Roberts does not create any space for the head to come through given the grip and how tight he holds the opponent.
• The level of force is high given Mr Roberts drops onto his opponent demonstrated by one of his legs coming off the ground.
• The time that pressure is applied is significant as Mr Roberts maintains the grip after he has dropped on his opponent.
• The opponent is in a vulnerable position due to the grip.
• Players have a duty of care to their opponents.
• The opponent required treatment from the medical staff after the incident.
• The MRP submit that Mr Roberts actions were highly reckless.

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

Player in attendance alongside Damian Irvine (Director). Player pleads Guilty but challenges the grading.

DI talked the panel through the incident and said he agreed with the protection of players. The club had brought a comparison clip (Brearley – Rochdale v Hunslet – Grade A) and they felt that there was a big difference in the grading of the two charges.

There was zero reaction on the pitch following the tackle and the Referee was only two metres away at the time and was ready to play on. The club feel that there was nothing untoward and that the opponent had not stopped resisting and the Referee had not shouted held. JJR was doing his job in completing the tackle and there was no malice involved. He took the saftest option to complete the tackle and has a clean disciplinary record. The club felt a grading of Grade D was over the top.

JJR added that he had heard the Doctor ask the opponent if he was “milking this” and the opponent had replied “yes.”

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

• To summarise the MRP submit this is a Grade D charge due to the following:
- High level of force by dropping onto the opponent.
- Significant time that pressure was applied to the head/neck of the opponent.
- Grip applied by the player leaves the opponent vulnerable.
- Player failed in their duty of care owed to the opponent.
- Opponent receives treatment following the incident

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal have reviewed the footage and heard submissions from the MRP and on behalf of the player.

They have also watched a comparison clip where the incident had been graded as Grade A and heard evidence from the Referee Ryan Cox who had put this matter on report.

The Tribunal are satisfied that this conduct was reckless. The player had the opponent’s head underneath him and put pressure on the opponent putting unnecessary pressure on his head and neck for a significant period of time. The comparison clip shows the tackled player’s head emerging at the end of the incident so was correctly graded as careless rather than reckless. In this case the opponent’s head was trapped under the player.

We note that the Match Officials have to make a decision there and then and had one go to get it right whereas the MRP has a considered view and can take time to review the incident.

Reactions of those on the field at the time are irrelevant. The Tribunal therefore grade this at Grade D and as the player has a clean record impose a 3 match suspension and £75 fine.

Suspension:

3 matches