Case Number:

ON/327/23

Willie Isa #11, Wigan Warriors

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Leigh Leopards v Wigan Warriors

Match Date:

2023-03-30

Incident:

Late contact on passer

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (i)

Dangerous Contact - A defending player makes contact with an opponent after the ball has been released by an opponent in a vulnerable position which causes flexion to the head, neck or spinal column on an attacking player, which poses an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.

Grade B

Sanctions:

1 Match Penalty Notice

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Guilty but challenging grade

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

Dangerous Contact - A defending player makes contact with an opponent after the ball has been released by an opponent in a vulnerable position which causes flexion to the head, neck or spinal column on an attacking player, which poses an unacceptable risk of injury to that player - Law 15.1(i)
• Match Review Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in the above match.

• The opponent Mr Lam can be seen to take off a shift play which puts him on the outside of Mr Isa.

• Mr Isa comes up but is then checked by the decoy runner inside which causes Mr Isa to set off at speed towards Mr Lam.

• Mr Lam takes the ball forward and then releases the ball.

• Mr Isa subsequently contacts his opponent after the ball has been released.

• There is significant flexion of the players head/neck area.

• The player has time to ensure he does not make the forceful contact that he does with his opponent. There were no adaptions made by Mr Isa prior to contact.

• Grade B due to:
- Contact is late.
- Speed at which player approaches opponent leaves no time to moderate behaviour when contacting opponent.
- No attempt to make a tackle.
- Forceful contact shown by movement of opponent’s head.
- Potential for serious injury.

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

Player and his representatives, solicitor Catherine Bradshaw and head coach, Matt Peet, stated this was a 'textbook' tackle. The player entered the tackle in a controlled manner at an appropriate speed for a Super League game, made contact with the defender's shoulder with his chin and chest and wrapped his arms around the defender to complete the tackle. He did not make contact with the spine of the defender.
The defender had previously feigned to pass the ball twice in the build up and the tackler was not to know if he was point to do so again.
The fact that the ball was released with just milliseconds before contact and the controlled manner Isa approached the tackle meant that the offence was careless and not reckless with no treatment required to the defender who played for the remainder of the game.

Decision:

Guilty

Reasons for Decision:

1. Willie Isa (‘WI’) made contact with Lachlan Lam (‘LL’) after he (LL) had passed the ball. As a result there was flexion of LL’s head/neck although he did not require any medical attention and played on.
2. The Match Review Panel (‘MRP’) reviewed this incident yesterday (03/04/2023) and concluded that the contact fell foul of Law 15.1(i). Namely, “Dangerous Contact …” (as above) which falls into the range of A-D offending. They determined that this contact was a Grade B offence which has a normal sentencing range of a fine to a 1 match suspension. The Panel issued a 1 match suspension.
3. The MRP found WI’s actions to be reckless. He approached at excessive speed and had a good view of LL. He did not ameliorate his speed &/or force/nature of contact which was in the back of LL who was not looking at WI. There was significant flexion of the neck/head. There was no real wrapping in the contact as LL was contacted forcefully in the back. This was unacceptable late contact contrary to the considerable concern and guidance about such contact and neck/head flexion.
4. WI appeals against the MRP’s decision. It is argued on his behalf that he had very little time or opportunity to pull out of his tackle when the ball was released only moments before he made contact with LL. The contact was on the shoulder blade (not the middle of the back) and WI was trying to wrap his arms in a tackle. LL had feinted to pass before the contact and WI was faced with either allowing LL to go into an attacking gap or execute a tackle. WI approached LL at normal Super League speed and with normal Super League force in order to effect a tackle. WI’s conduct was controlled and not reckless. In argument WI’s tackle was described as being ‘textbook.’ LL played on and was not injured.
5. It is therefore contended that his actions were careless and neither reckless nor intentional. Allied to his personal mitigation, which is set out in some detail in a letter from his solicitors, it is suggested that there should be a lesser grading (Grade A) and therefore no suspension but rather a fine only.
6. The Tribunal prefers the conclusions of the MRP about this clearly ‘dangerous contact.’ WI, especially in light of all the very well known concerns about head/neck flexion, owed a duty of care to LL. WI saw LL throughout the approach and contact whereas LL was caught unawares by WI who made forceful contact into the back of him. WI did not ameliorate his actions in hitting very forcefully into LL’s back when LL was looking the other way (i.e. looking away from WI). The contact was between WI’s upper body and LL’s back. WI’s arms were spread out (as they would have to be given the physical mechanics of the contact). There was no real ‘tackle’ being effected as opposed to a very forceful hit in the back as WI arrived upon LL at considerable speed thereby causing significant neck/head flexion.
7. Although WI accepts that his contact with LL was careless only because LL had passed the ball shortly before contact, the Tribunal categorises his contact as being reckless within the definition set out at paragraph 8.2.2 of the On Field Compliance Procedures & Sentencing Guidelines. There were obvious & significant risks with the speed, force and circumstances of this contact and WI failed to ameliorate his conduct when he ran those risks which he could have sought to avoid or minimise.
8. Given the correct grading of B offending and then taking account of WI’s disciplinary record in 2021 (whilst also seeing that record through the prism of what is said in paragraph 5.1 of the solicitor’s letter) the correct penalty is that imposed by the MRP. Namely a suspension of 1 match.
9. The deposit of £500 will be forfeited.
His Honour Roger Thomas KC DL
Graeme Hallas
Wilf George.

4th April 2023

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

Accepted MRP recommendation of a 1 match penalty

Suspension:

1 match suspension