Case Number:

ON/956/23

Kai O’Donnell #24, Leigh

Competition:

Challenge Cup

Match:

York Knights v Leigh Leopards

Match Date:

2023-06-18

Incident:

Dangerous Throw

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (d)

Dangerous Throw – other dangerous throw

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 19th 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 4 50 footage time of the above match. The Panel believed that you have used a lifted and twisted your opponent in the air, who has then landed on his head and neck. The Panel believe 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 – Dangerous Throw – Other Dangerous Throw.

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

Dangerous Throw - Other Dangerous Throw
• MRP reviewed an incident which took place in the above match.

• Mr O’Donnell was dismissed following the incident.

• The footage shows the opponent Mr Daley run directly towards Mr O’Donnell.

• Mr O’ Donnell makes good initial contact and has both of his hands on the back of the thighs of his opponent.

• Mr O’Donnell then begins to drive upwards and turns his opponent in mid-air.

• As the tackle is coming down Mr O’Donnell makes no adjustments to ensure the opponent is returned to the ground in a safe a manner as possible.

• The opponent lands on his head and neck which are bent towards his own back.

• Mr Daley is completely vulnerable due to the lifting action of Mr O’Donnell.

• 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:

Player in attendance alongside Derek Beaumont (Chairman), Adrian Lam (Head Coach), Neil Jukes (CEO) and Chris Chester (Head of Rugby). Player pleads guilty but challenges the grading.

The club are in agreement that this incident is extremely ugly and dangerous and could have resulted in serious injury. They are in no way trying to justify the tackle or its outcome but are attempting to provide some detail around it as they respectfully seek special dispensation from the Tribunal considering what is put before them regarding the length of suspension.

The club would like the Tribunal to take into account the incident happened in the 4th minute of the game and was the players first game against a Championship side after 15 Super League and one Challenge Cup game against full-time athletes. They would also like the panel to consider the relativeness of that taking into account the letters from the Club Doctor and Head Coach in terms of the difference in physicality, power and strength and how as the game developed our players had to adjust themselves to that which led on a number of occasions to our players letting a player go to avoid a situation like what we are discussing now.

DB then talked the Tribunal through the tackle and referenced the still images the club had provided.

In summary the player takes full responsibility for the tackle but wants to point out his intentions were to perform a textbook dominant tackle. He showed immediate remorse as the tackle was concluding and immediately afterwards. The opponent got up quickly and his actions weren’t aggressive or those of someone who felt they had been mistreated. This is confirmed in his statement. The player has shown genuine remorse and has apologised to his opponent and checked on his health both personally and by the opposing club’s medical staff.

The player would also be prepared to pay a larger fine by proportion as opposed to a larger suspension.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal have listened to the submissions made by both sides and have watched the footage several times.

We have considered the Compliance Managers request that an 8-match suspension should be applied in this instance, however, we have taken into account the impeccable character of the player and the genuine remorse that he has shown.

Following the submissions made on his behalf the Tribunal feel this takes us down to a 6-match suspension, but that is the minimum that can be justified.

The Tribunal do not find any exceptional circumstances to go below that and they certainly will not reduce the suspension and replace it with an increased financial penalty.

Suspension:

6 matches