Case Number:

ON/1028/23

Jarrod Sammut #6, Barrow

Competition:

Championship

Match:

Halifax Panthers v Barrow Raiders

Match Date:

2023-06-25

Incident:

Referee abuse

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (g)

Disputes using aggressive language or body language.

Grade E

Fine:

£375

Sanctions:

4-6

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Not Guilty

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 29th June 2023, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(g) during the above match.

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 51 35 footage time of the above match. In the Referees Report it states the following:

In approximately the 40th minute, Barrow kicked high, and the ball was collected by Woodburn-Hall, as he was low to the ground, Sammut came in with speed carelessly in my view as he almost hit Woodburn-Hall in the head with his lower legs. I penalised this for foul play and could see Sammut's frustration so asked him to be very careful and to calm down. He then kept going at me because in his words he was the captain when Mossop wasn't on the field. I then had to ask him bluntly to go away as he wouldn't accept the decision. As he turned away, he said "your so f****** s***" which I was going to advance the mark 10m and sin bin him, he then called me a "blind c***" so I immediately made the decision to dismiss him from the game. However, he intentionally ignored me several times as he clearly knew what he had said and chose to purposely ignore me. I restarted the game with a penalty to Halifax once Sammut had left the field of play.

The Panel believe your actions were unnecessary 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 E offence – Disputes using aggressive language or body language.

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

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

• Mr Sammut was red carded following the incident.

• The referee’s report states the following:

In approximately the 40th minute, Barrow kicked high, and the ball was collected by Woodburn-Hall, as he was low to the ground, Sammut came in with speed carelessly in my view as he almost hit Woodburn-Hall in the head with his lower legs. I penalised this for foul play and could see Sammut's frustration so asked him to be very careful and to calm down. He then kept going at me because in his words he was the captain when Mossop wasn't on the field. I then had to ask him bluntly to go away as he wouldn't accept the decision. As he turned away, he said "your so f****** s***" which I was going to advance the mark 10m and sin bin him, he then called me a " blind c***" so I immediately made the decision to dismiss him from the game. However, he intentionally ignored me several times as he clearly knew what he had said and chose to purposely ignore me. I restarted the game with a penalty to Halifax once Sammut had left the field of play.

• The Match Review Panel see no reason to disbelieve the referee.

• The footage supports that there is clear interaction between both Mr Sammut and the referee, and this is initiated by the player.

• This amounts to disputing a decision in an aggressive manner.

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

• Under 1.2 of the On Field Sentencing Guidelines it states that the disciplinary system must support and protect Match Officials.

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

- Grade E due to:
? Repeated foul and abusive language towards referee.
? Language is of an aggressive nature.
? Brings sport into disrepute.

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

Player in attendance alongside Andy Gaffney (Team Manager). Player pleads Not Guilty.

The Referee (Cameron Worsley) joined the hearing and was cross-examined by both the Compliance Manager and the player and his representative.

AG asked is he could be 100% sure the comments were made by JS as there were a lot of players in the vicinity at the time.

JS talked through the footage and whilst admitting he did exchange words with the Referee, they were not the words he had been accused of using. He confirmed that he said, “we’ve not had a f****** call all game” and “I didn’t f****** touch him.”

AG explained that JS was a model professional and it was not in his character to use these kind of words. He felt that the Tribunal have to be 100% sure with the evidence that has been provided, whilst JS had his back to the Referee and there were a lot of people around at the time.

JS added that it was a shame there was no audio available as he felt that would make him exempt from the charge. He also added the club were in a testing and crucial time of the season and he would not risk been unavailable for selection at this time.

Decision:

Guilty

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal have listened to the submissions made by the Compliance Manager and by the player and his representative.

They have determined that the MRP must prove its case in terms of the standard and they have agreed that it must be higher than the usual “comfortable satisfaction” given the nature of this charge.

The Tribunal have watched the footage several times and have listened to the Referee who could not have been clearer as to what was said. The Tribunal note that the player appears to lose his cool when a decision goes against him and he continues to go back time and again towards the Referee.

It is also noted that the player and Referee are both focused on the conversation and on the interaction which was going on between them. There is not real room for mistake here, either the words were said or they were not.

The Tribunal find the conversation that was reported by the Referee to be accurate and reliable in those circumstances. They therefore find that the charge is proved.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

AG reiterated that he felt that to be charged the Tribunal had to be 100% sure.

He added that he felt the suspension should be towards the bottom end of the range for a Grade E charge.

Aggravating Factors:

04/08/22 – Dangerous Contact (Grade B – 1 match)
12/03/23 – Dangerous Throw (Grade D – 4 matches)
24/01/19 – Contact with Match Official (Grade C – 2 matches)

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal agree that this was a persistent challenge to a Match Official which is not acceptable, in particular when the challenge is abusive and repeated in the terms that were used. This was also aggressive.

Behaviour like this makes people reluctant to become Match Officials and that is something the game can ill afford. The Tribunal feel this is appropriately graded at Grade E.

Having considered the players previous record the Tribunal feel the appropriate suspension is 5 matches. The player will be fined £375.

Suspension:

4 matches