Case Number:

ON/064/23

Elliott Wallis #24, Midlands

Competition:

League One

Match:

Midlands Hurricanes v Cornwall

Match Date:

2023-02-19

Incident:

Striking

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (a)

Strikes - Strikes with hand, arm or shoulder – intentional

Grade E

Fine:

£75

Sanctions:

4-6

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Guilty

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 23rd February 2023, 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 1 39 20 SharePoint footage time of the above match. You were dismissed following the incident. In the Panel’s opinion you struck your opponent with force in the genital area. The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary, had the potential to cause your opponent injury and are 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 E offence – Strikes - Strikes with hand, arm or shoulder – intentional.

The normal suspension range for such offence is 4 to 6 matches.

• The Match Review Panel were concerned at the behaviour of Mr Wallis.

• Mr Wallis was dismissed by the match referee following the incident.

• After a decision is awarded against Mr Wallis, he come across an opponent who is walking into the area.

• The referee’s report states the following:

Elliot was in possession on the ball then upon getting up takes the leg out of the Cornwall player. I award a penalty to Cornwall. Then Elliott hits Charlie in the testicles. I don’t see the contact, but my touch judge advises me that he has seen it and recommended a Red Card.

• The footage clearly shows an action by Mr Wallis towards the opponent who reacts with an immediate body jerk and goes to the ground.

• The Panel are satisfied that this is a strike as opposed to an attack of the testicles. The Panel believe that Mr Wallis has intended to strike his opponent but cannot conclusively say that he is aiming for the genital area and the contact is fleeting.

• The Panel believed that Mr WALLIS’s actions were unnecessary, against the true spirit of the game and brings the game into disrepute.

• Mr WALLIS’s standards have fallen below what is expected of a player and amount to Misconduct.

• In determining a Grade E charge, The Panel believe that any contact in the genital area is sensitive and although the force from Mr Wallis would appear minimal, it would instantly lead to some form of pain for the opponent which is shown clearly on the footage.

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 23rd February 2023, 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 1 39 20 SharePoint footage time of the above match. You were dismissed following the incident. In the Panel’s opinion you struck your opponent with force in the genital area. The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary, had the potential to cause your opponent injury and are 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 E offence – Strikes - Strikes with hand, arm or shoulder – intentional.

The normal suspension range for such offence is 4 to 6 matches.

• The Match Review Panel were concerned at the behaviour of Mr Wallis.

• Mr Wallis was dismissed by the match referee following the incident.

• After a decision is awarded against Mr Wallis, he come across an opponent who is walking into the area.

• The referee’s report states the following:

Elliot was in possession on the ball then upon getting up takes the leg out of the Cornwall player. I award a penalty to Cornwall. Then Elliott hits Charlie in the testicles. I don’t see the contact, but my touch judge advises me that he has seen it and recommended a Red Card.

• The footage clearly shows an action by Mr Wallis towards the opponent who reacts with an immediate body jerk and goes to the ground.

• The Panel are satisfied that this is a strike as opposed to an attack of the testicles. The Panel believe that Mr Wallis has intended to strike his opponent but cannot conclusively say that he is aiming for the genital area and the contact is fleeting.

• The Panel believed that Mr WALLIS’s actions were unnecessary, against the true spirit of the game and brings the game into disrepute.

• Mr WALLIS’s standards have fallen below what is expected of a player and amount to Misconduct.

• In determining a Grade E charge, The Panel believe that any contact in the genital area is sensitive and although the force from Mr Wallis would appear minimal, it would instantly lead to some form of pain for the opponent which is shown clearly on the footage.

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

Player not in attendance, however, he entered a guilty plea via an e-mail from his parent club Castleford Tigers.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal have watched the footage of the incident and have read the reports from both the Referee and Touch Judge.

They acknowledge the players guilty plea and also that the player has nothing of a similar nature on his disciplinary record.

The Report from the Touch Judge is clear that he definitely saw the actions of the player and this is backed up by the footage. The Tribunal note the player is not challenging the grading of the charge either.

The Tribunal are therefore of the opinion that the player should be given a 5-match suspension, along with the standard fine of £75.

Suspension:

5 matches