Case Number:

ON/1635/22

Chris Barratt #8, NWC

Competition:

League 1

Match:

NWC v Rochdale

Match Date:

2022-08-20

Incident:

Dissent

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (f)

Questioning Integrity of Match Official

Grade C

Fine:

£75

Sanctions:

2 Match Penalty Notice

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Not Guilty

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 25th August 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 01.19.00 SharePoint time of the above match. You were sin binned following the incident The referee reported that you stated the following: As NWC (8) was coming back to defensive line he said ‘he’s xxxxxx down’ referencing the injured player. I advised him we were playing on as he’s outside the field of play. At that point he replied ‘you’re a xxxxxxx joke’ so I penalised him for dissent. After I had penalised him he replied ‘you xxxxxxx cheat’ so I sinbin him. The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary and against the spirit of the game.

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade C offence – Questioning Integrity of Match Official

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

• MRP were concerned at the behaviour of Mr Barratt towards the match referee.
• After a restart, where 2 North Wales players appear to be injured Mr Barratt gets into dialogue with the referee.
• The referee’s report stats the following:
North Wales were in attack and put a kick into the Rochdale in goal that ended up going dead in goal. Two NWC players collided with one staying down but outside of the field of play, so I restarted the game with a 20m restart. As NWC (8) was coming back to defensive line he said ‘he’s xxxxxx down’ referencing the injured player. I advised him we were playing on as he’s outside the field of play. At that point he replied ‘you’re a xxxxxxx joke’ so I penalised him for dissent. After I had penalised him he replied ‘you xxxxxxx cheat’ so I sinbin him
• Mr Barratt it is clear on the footage is in close proximity to the referee.
• The MRP see no reason to disbelieve the referee.
• The language questions the integrity and is abusive of his performance.
• Referees are integral to the sport and must be respected.

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

The player was in attendance alongside Ian Edwards (Chairman) and Andy Moulsdale (CEO). Player pleads not guilty.

Both CB and the Referee were questioned on the situation. CB had also supplied a written statement of the incident. It read:

“During the game I was running back to be onside with the Referee when I pointed out that there was three people currently down with head injuries behind the play.

The Referee told me they were off the pitch so it didn’t matter, I said “That’s a joke because it’s their head you need to stop the game”.

At this point the Referee gave a penalty against me. As I was walking away I said out loud to myself “This is xxxxxxx ridiculous”.

The Referee heard me say this and then gave me a yellow card.”

Decision:

Guilty

Reasons for Decision:

This is a challenge against the decision of the Match Review panel by the player.

Evidence was given by both the player and the Referee, and a video clip was shown by the RFL, without audio, of the incident.

The burden and standard of proof in the Operational Rules Tribunal is as follows:

“The Compliance Manager shall have the burden of establishing that the infield misconduct has occurred. The standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

It seemed common ground during the appeal that the player had used the word “fucking” on a number of occasions.

There had been no previous issues between the player and the Referee during the game and we felt that the Referee had nothing to gain by lying.

The Tribunal considered the footage as against the evidence given by both the player and the Referee. The Tribunal felt that the chronology as displayed on the video was supportive of the Referee’s evidence.

In addition, the reactions of the player and the Referee lead us to consider that we can prefer the Referee’s version to the required standard and therefore the appeal fails.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

• Graded C due to;
- Two instances of foul language towards referee.
- Abusive of performance and questions integrity.
- Breach of RESPECT Policy.
- Brings game into disrepute.
- Potential to affect recruitment and retention of referees in the sport.

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal heard representations that the appeal was in fact frivolous and therefore after hearing from both sides it was felt that this was not a frivolous appeal.

The Tribunal felt that the player was entitled to put forward his version. Simply because we found for the RFL does not automatically mean that the appeal was frivolous.

As such the player is suspended for 2 matches and fined £75 and the club will forfeit a £250 bond.

Suspension:

2 matches