Case Number:

ON/1728/22

Anthony Thackeray #7, Sheffield

Competition:

Championship

Match:

York City Knights v Sheffield Eagles

Match Date:

2022-08-26

Incident:

Strikes

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (a)

Strikes with hand, arm or shoulder – intentional

Grade D

Fine:

£250

Sanctions:

3-5

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Guilty but challenge the grading

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

Guilty but challenge the grading

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 1st September 2022, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(a) during the above match.

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 01:05:25 SharePoint time of the above match. You were sin binned following the incident. In the Panel’s opinion you intentionally struck your opponent off the ball. 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 in breach of Law 15.1(a) – Strikes with hand, arm or shoulder – intentional

The normal suspension range for such offence is 3-5 matches.

• Match Review Panel were alerted to an incident which occurred in the Championship match between Yor v Sheffield.
• Player was sin-binned following the incident.
• Player became involved in an incident and threw arm at your opponent, making initial contact to the face/head.
• Forceful strike to opponent’s face with back of forearm.
• Player clearly looks at opponent before throwing the arm backwards.
• Actions were unnecessary, avoidable, against the spirit of the game and had the potential to injure the opponent.
• Incident led to a melee forming.
• Contact to the face and/or head misconduct treated extremely seriously.
• Charged under Law 15.1(a) – Strikes with hand, arm or shoulder – Intentional.

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

The player was in attendance alongside Mark Aston (Head Coach). Player pleads guilty but challenges the grading.

AT talked through incident and explained he reacted to provocation from the opponent and was trying to get away from him. He accepted that he had lashed out and that his forearm had made contact with the opponent, however, he was an experienced player who had played over 400 first team games, and he was not the type of player to strike someone.

Whilst he agreed that this was reckless, he felt that he would not have reacted without being provoked.

MA felt that the opponent was the aggressor and that he threw a punch. AT had reacted following the actions of the opponent.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

• Grade D offence (lowest Grade for this particular offence). The normal suspension range for such offence is 3-5 matches.
• Definition of intention satisfied – clearly an intentional act.
• Strike not defined in Operational Rules, but dictionary definition satisfied.
• Incident completely unnecessary and not part of play.
• To the face/head of the opponent and player shows a complete disregard for what the sport is doing re head contact.

Aggravating Factors:

28/04/22 – Other Contrary Behaviour – Lashing out at an opponent – Caution
23/01/20 – Disputes Decision – Grade A – 1 match
23/05/19 – Disputes Decision – Grade A – 0 matches
01/10/18 – Dangerous Throw – Grade B – 1 match
13/04/17 – Tripping – Grade C – 2 matches

Reasons for Decision:

In the recent (26th August) Sheffield v York match Anthony Thackeray (AT) was sent off for striking an opponent.

The Match Review Panel (MRP) have examined that incident and have deemed it to breach Law 15.1(a). Namely, “…Intentionally Striking Another Player … with elbow/forearm.” The MRP determined it as a Grade D offence and sent it to this Tribunal for final adjudication.

The basic situation here is straightforward enough to describe and understand. There was an initial tackle which involved a little pushing/pulling and which created some unhappiness. That unhappiness carried over into the next tackle. At the end of that next tackle the back of AT’s shirt was being held (fairly superficially) by a York player. AT was frustrated by that act and he turned about and in doing so he struck out with his forearm/elbow at the York player who was holding him. This happened in front of the Touch Judge who immediately intervened and drew the matter to the attention of the referee who sinbinned AT.

The principal question for the Tribunal to decide this evening was whether AT’s clear and admitted strike was intentional or something less than intentional. That determination would decide where this offence fell in the Disciplinary Laws & Guidelines.

When questioned about that central issue AT, supported by his Coach Mark Aston, was unwilling to accept that his action was intentional. He/they said that he acted in response to the York player’s actions (including him throwing a punch at AT) and that what he did was reckless and not intentional.

In the Tribunal’s view it is simply impossible to describe AT’s strike as anything other than intentional. This was not a reckless flailing about of the arms that happened to make contact with someone. Rather this was a deliberate act carried out as a result of what had just happened and AT’s own frustration & temper. AT actually turned round immediately before he struck the York player and having seen him immediately behind him he then purposefully struck him.

Therefore, the MRP have correctly categorised this offence as an “Intentional strike with elbow/forearm” which carries a penalty of 3-5 games suspension.

One further matter that AT raised was the provocation that he said he was subject to immediately before he struck out. There is no doubt that the York player was holding the back of his shirt and that there had been some toing & froing in the earlier tackle. To that extent those earlier actions do give some explanation for AT’s reaction in striking the York player although they do not really provide any significant provocation to mitigate what AT did.

Further though AT and Mark Aston said that AT had been punched in the tackle immediately leading up to the striking. Although the video of the incident does show an arm going forward it is not possible to see any punch as such, even a slight dig as opposed to a haymaker. It is not possible to accept that AT’s actions were triggered by a punch being thrown at him.

Rather it is clear that AT acted out of frustration and temper. Interestingly the same frustration and temper he displayed at the end of this hearing when he became rude and argumentative before storming out of the hearing as a result of the announcement of the Tribunal’s findings and imposition of a suspension.

The Tribunal took into account the aggravating factor that the strike was to the head of an opponent when it is widely known that any contact with the head is to be avoided. Further as aggravation, in April this year AT had been Cautioned as a result of him lashing out in an earlier game.

Therefore, in all these circumstances the Tribunal suspends AT for 4-matches together with the specified fine of £250.

Suspension:

4 matches