Case Detail
Case Number:
ON/1055/23
Liam Watts #32, Castleford
Competition:
Super League
Match:
St Helens v Castleford Tigers
Match Date:
2023-06-30
Incident:
Dangerous Contact
Decision:
Charge
Charge Detail:
Law 15.1 (i)
Dangerous Contact - Defender uses any part of their body forcefully to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.
Grade C
Sanctions:
2 Match Penalty Notice
Decision On Charge
Player plea:
Not Guilty
Summary of CM's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 3rd July 2023, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(i) during the above match.
The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 07 39 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have applied pressure to the leg of your opponent. The Panel believed your actions were unnecessary, had the potential for 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 C offence – Dangerous Contact - Defender uses any part of their body forcefully to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.
The normal suspension range for such offence is from a 1 to a 2-Match suspension.
• The Match Review Panel were concerned at the behaviour of Mr Watts.
• The opponent Mr Dodd can be seen to pick up a loose ball and advances towards the Castleford defensive line.
• Mr Watts is already up in the line comes across to contact the opponent and takes a good grip of the waist.
• At this point the MRP submit that Mr Watts begins to rotate his body his behind the Mr Dodd.
• Mr Watts body then comes down and lands on the lower right leg of Mr Dodd.
• The MRP were entirely satisfied that Mr Watts had applied pressure to the leg which involved an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.
• Mr Watts actions were of a reckless nature.
• There was the potential for serious injury.
• Mr Watt’s standards have fallen below what is expected of a player and amount to Misconduct.
- Grade C due to:
? Highly reckless act – instant rotation of the body after gaining a grip of the opponent.
? Significant bodyweight coming down on opponent’s leg.
? Potential for serious injury
Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Player in attendance alongside Danny Wilson (Director of Rugby). Player pleads Not Guilty.
DW talked the Tribunal through the footage. The club feel that there was not a clear rotation by LW and that his body weight did not land on the leg of the opponent. They do not think his hip makes contact with the legs of the opponent either.
The club feel the contact made by a teammate also contributes to the way the tackle ends as the force been applied by him stops the opponent’s forward momentum. They also note that the opponent regained his feet immediately to play the ball and was not injured.
LW then talked the Tribunal through the incident. He explained that the wet weather made conditions difficult and that there was no intent to cause any harm to the opponent. He felt that a Grade C was very harsh and there was no malice involved. His teammates involvement in the tackle played a part in how it ended and that there was no malice involved. He has been working hard on his game with regard to any dangerous contact situations.
Decision:
Not Guilty
Reasons for Decision:
The Tribunal have taken a lot of time to consider this charge. They have taken into account the weather conditions during the game and they note that the player kept a grip of the opponent at all times during the tackle.
They also note that a teammate of the player became involved and his impact effectively stopped the opponent in his tracks virtually instantly, the result of which meant the players momentum carried round to the back of the opponents’ legs.
Whilst the Tribunal do think that contact was made to the legs of the opponent, they do not find that the player purposely dropped onto the opponent’s ankle and he dropped down as a result of gravity. The Tribunal do not feel there was any other course of action the player could have taken and that contact was accidental and not reckless.
They therefore find the charge is dismissed.