Case Number:

ON/886/23

Hugo Salabio #42, Wakefield

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Wakefield Trinity v Leeds Rhinos

Match Date:

2023-06-11

Incident:

Dangerous Throw

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (d)

Spear Tackle - Driving player into ground on head or neck

Grade F

Fine:

£1000

Sanctions:

6+

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Guilty

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 12th June 2023, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(d) during the above match.

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 1 00 49 Sharepoint footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have picked up your opponent and drove them into the ground on their head or neck. The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary, had the potential to cause injury and are against the true spirit of the game.

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade F offence – Spear Tackle - Driving player into ground on head or neck.

The normal suspension range for such offence is 6 matches plus.

• MRP reviewed an incident which took place in the above match.

• Mr Salabio was dismissed following the incident.

• The footage shows Mr Salabio lose a ball into contact with the opponent Mr Myler.

• As the ball is lodged between both the player and the opponent, Mr Salabio proceeds to lifts his opponent taking his opponents feet off the ground.

• Mr Salabio at the highest point of the lift then turns his opponent.

• Mr Salabio then drives his opponent down maintaining the grip all the way to the ground.

• Mr Myler lands on his head and neck first upon contacting the ground.

• Mr Myler is completely vulnerable not only due to the lifting action of Mr Salabio but because Mr Myler believes he is the defender in this instance and is performing a wrap tackle himself so is not expecting this sort of action.

• Potential for serious injury.

• Graded F due to;
- Vulnerability of the opponent.
- The highly dangerous action of the player.
- The potentially serious implications that a tackle of this nature may have. No mitigation that the opponent did not sustain an injury.
- Players have a duty of care to their opponent.

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

HS not in attendance, however, is represented by Michael Carter (CEO), Mark Applegarth (Head Coach). Player pleads Guilty.

MC explained that the club were not here to defend the incident and offered some background to the player. The player is aware that he got the tackle wrong and has apologised to the opponent following the incident.

HS is a young player making his way in the game as he seeks to earn an SL contract for next season. with 13 games left of the season the club feel that any suspension should be to the lower end of Grade F at 6 matches. There was no malice involved and the player is of good character.

MA echoed the earlier comments and added that HS had a split second to try complete the tackle and had mistimed it. He also felt 6 matches was enough as although it was a clumsy tackle there was no malice involved. The club agree with the grading at Grade F.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

It was clear from the footage that the Tribunal were able to see that this was a Grade F offence. The Tribunal agreed with the comments made on behalf of the RFL that the player forcefully drives down his opposite number, his feet left the ground, the tackled player went to ground with significant force and was in a vulnerable position.

It was by good fortune that the player tackled was not significantly injured.

On behalf of the player the Tribunal took on board submissions from Michael Carter and Mark Applegarth. They accept that he is a young player who has no previous disciplinary issues neither here nor in France where he has been playing in the French Elite 1 competition. It was also accepted that there was no malice or intent. It was a particularly bad tackle and the player simply “got it wrong.”

The Tribunal felt that the player very quickly moved from being the attacker to then being a defender after he dropped the ball and it was a split-second decision to affect the tackle that he did.

It was noted that the player was sent off at half-time and to that extent this tackle already cost his team half a match without him.

In all of the circumstances, the Tribunal felt that the appropriate sanction was to ban the player for seven matches and make him subject to the guideline fine of £1000.

Suspension:

7 matches