Case Number:

ON/1763/22

Rhyse Martin #12, Leeds

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Leeds Rhinos v Castleford Tigers

Match Date:

2022-09-03

Incident:

High Tackle

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (i)



High Tackle – second tackler in wrapping up



Grade A

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 5th September 2022, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(b) during the above match.

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 00.32.53 Opta time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you made contact with the head of your opponent as second tackler in wrapping up. 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 A offence High Tackle – Careless – second tackler in – wrapping tackle up.

The normal suspension range for such offence is from NFA to 1 match.

• MRP were concerned at the manner in which Mr Martin makes contact with his opponent.
• Opponent carries the ball towards two players one of these being Mr Martin
• Player is the second person coming into the tackle after his teammate goes low.
• Mr Martin makes initial contact with the head of the opponent.
• Player’s arm is high into contact.
• Mr Martin’s teammate does not drop the height of the opponent to an unreasonable position.
• Player has duty of care to not make contact with the opponent’s head.
• This contact was careless. The player has a lot of upper body to tackle with his teammate going low.
• Potential for injury. Opponent’s nose is bleeding after the contact.

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

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

RM talked through the incident and explained he was attempting to lock the ball up in order to stop the off load. His teammate is tackling the opponent low down and this makes the opponent drop slightly as he enters the tackle.

He added he had missed just three games this season and this weekend was the biggest game of the season.

RS explained that RM had a split second to react as the opponent dropped down and that there was no swinging arm or clenched fist. A penalty was given following the incident but there was no other on-field action taken by the Referee or Video Referee. Contact was glancing.

The club then introduced a comparison a clip (Pearce – Catalans v Leeds – Caution). RS felt this showed the player had both feet of the ground and that his arm was swinging. The opponent went from “low to tall” which was the complete opposite to the incident that was been heard.

In response to the CM introducing a comparison clip (Roby – St Helens v Wigan – Grade A) RS felt it showed no bend in the knees (which RM did) and that the players arm is above shoulder height.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

• Graded A due to;
- Makes contact with the head with no mitigating factors.
- Player is second person in wrapping up the tackle.
- Opponent is not dropped to an unreasonable height.
- Player receives treatment for an injury.

Reasons for Decision:

In the recent Leeds v Castleford match (3rd September) Rhyse Martin (RM) made contact with the head of an opponent when he (RM) was the second tackler and when he sought to wrap the opponent up following a lower tackle on that opponent by a teammate.

The Match Review Panel (MRP) have reviewed that incident and determined that the tackle falls foul of Rule 15.1(b) – “When tackling or attempting to tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent.”. The opponent was injured (bloody nose) and the MRP decided that the contact was the result of a careless act. The MRP were of the view that there was little real ‘dip’ by the ball carrier, there was a large target area below the head for RM to affect his tackle and RM’s arm was high in the tackle as he made contact directly with the opponent’s head. Hence, falling squarely within the descriptions of “Careless – ball carrier dips, any high tackle or strike with hand/arm … Careless – second tackler in, wrapping tackle up, any high tackle or strike with hand/arm.” Such an offence is Graded as A-B. The MRP assessed the offence as a Grade A offence and because of RM’s disciplinary record that assessment automatically led to the imposition of a 1 match suspension.

RM now appeals against the finding of the MRP. Supported by his Coach he contends that his actions merit no more than a Caution. He points to the speed of the incident, the fact that the ball carrier went somewhat downwards in the initial tackle that was already being made and his intention was to do no more than ensure that the ball carrier was effectively wrapped up and unable to offload the ball.

The Tribunal’s attention was drawn to two video clips from other games. The MRP drew attention to a tackle by James Roby which merited a Grade A finding without any suspension (it being said that that high secondary tackle was very similar to RM’s case, save for the fact that Roby’s good disciplinary record did not, unlike with RM, automatically trigger a suspension). RM drew attention to a 1on1 high tackle in a Catalans/Leeds match when the defending player was wrong footed and put his arm out into the face of the oncoming opponent. As with all comparative videos the Tribunal must of course concentrate upon the incident in question and not be unduly diverted by any other incident and finding. Having said that, the Roby video is in reality quite similar to RM’s tackle, whilst the Leeds/Catalans video shows a rather different set of circumstances.

Although RM pleads for an outcome less than a suspension (namely for a Caution) that plea cannot realistically be translated by him into any proper application of the laws/rules. His argument really amounts to no more than a plea for some leniency as opposed to an exercise in applying the rules and laws of the game.

The description within the laws/rules, as set out in paragraph 2 above, squarely describes RM’s case. It is impossible to describe or categorise his tackle in any other way or language. Inevitably therefore he falls foul here of Rule 15.1(b), “when tackling makes contact with the head of an opponent.” Not on an intentional or reckless basis but as a result of a culpable careless act.

There can be no other outcome in these circumstances than a categorisation of this as a Grade A offence. The laws and rules allow for no other result. Moreover, given RM’s disciplinary record, that categorisation can only lead to a suspension. A Caution cannot be administered in his case (unlike the Roby case) because of that record.

Finally, the Tribunal can only describe this appeal as being “unreasonable/frivolous” because it had no basis or merit to it within the rules and laws. It amounted to no more in reality than something of a general plea for clemency, perhaps motivated, in part or in whole, by an understandable wish to play in the important match that Leeds have this weekend. Given the unreasonable/frivolous nature of the appeal the Tribunal must therefore impose a further one match suspension in addition to the already imposed suspension for the Grade A offence.

The £500 appeal bond is forfeited and a fine of £500 also must follow.

Suspension:

2 matches