Case Number:

ON/1302/23

Jorge Taufua #28, Bradford

Competition:

Championship

Match:

Bradford Bulls v Barrow Raiders

Match Date:

2023-07-31

Incident:

Biting

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (i)

Biting

Grade F

Fine:

£375

Sanctions:

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 3rd August 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 36 20 footage time of the above match. The Match Officials report states the following “In approximately the 33rd minute of the game, Bradford Bulls were in possession of the ball coming away from their goal line approximately 15m out. More specifically, Jorge Taufua (Bradford Bulls - Number 28) was in possession of the ball and carried the ball into several Barrow Raiders tacklers, one which was Jarrod Stack (Barrow Raiders - Number 12). As Taufua was being tackled, I saw the arm of Stack around the neck/lower face area of Taufua, I then saw from my angle a clear bite by Taufua to the arm/wrist area of Stack, this caused Stack to react instantly. I was in shock at first hence taking my time to process the decision, which is why I only called time off before blowing the penalty; this is common practice for serious foul play. I had concluded I was sending off Taufua as soon as I had seen it but had to control Stack and other players first of all. I then spoke to my touch judge, Simon Ellis, who didn’t see anything from his angle which was understandable as I had a clear view from my angle at the opposite side. It is also worth noting that I saw a clear bite mark on Stacks forearm/wrist area which consisted of just lower teeth marks, this made sense as I believe Taufua had a gum shield in. Taufua also said he did it because Stack put his arm across his face/mouth, he clearly visualised this action too whilst I was de-escalating the situation. After I had spoken to my touch judge, Simon Ellis and he had nothing to add, I dismissed Taufua from the field for biting. I restarted the game with a penalty to Barrow for the biting offence.” The Panel believe the footage supports the Match Officials report. The Panel believe your actions were unnecessary, had the potential for 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 – Biting.

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

• The Panel reviewed an incident whereby Mr Taufua was dismissed from the field of play.

• Mr Taufua takes a carry into contact with Mr Stack his opponent being one of those making a tackle.

• As the tackle begins to go to ground, the footage sures Mr Taufua’s mouth near the arm of Mr Stack.

• As soon as the tackle is complete, Mr Stack gets up and holds his arm indicating something has occurred.

• The referee notes the reaction and consults his touch judge before sending Mr Taufua from the field of play.

• The referee’s report states the following;
“In approximately the 33rd minute of the game, Bradford Bulls were in possession of the ball coming away from their goal line approximately 15m out. More specifically, Jorge Taufua (Bradford Bulls - Number 28) was in possession of the ball and carried the ball into several Barrow Raiders tacklers, one which was Jarrod Stack (Barrow Raiders - Number 12). As Taufua was being tackled, I saw the arm of Stack around the neck/lower face area of Taufua, I then saw from my angle a clear bite by Taufua to the arm/wrist area of Stack, this caused Stack to react instantly. I was in shock at first hence taking my time to process the decision, which is why I only called time off before blowing the penalty; this is common practice for serious foul play. I had concluded I was sending off Taufua as soon as I had seen it but had to control Stack and other players first of all. I then spoke to my touch judge, Simon Ellis, who didn’t see anything from his angle which was understandable as I had a clear view from my angle at the opposite side. It is also worth noting that I saw a clear bite mark on Stacks forearm/wrist area which consisted of just lower teeth marks, this made sense as I believe Taufua had a gum shield in. Taufua also said he did it because Stack put his arm across his face/mouth, he clearly visualised this action too whilst I was de-escalating the situation. After I had spoken to my touch judge, Simon Ellis and he had nothing to add, I dismissed Taufua from the field for biting. I restarted the game with a penalty to Barrow for the biting offence.”

• The Match Review Panel are satisfied that this was deliberate act committed by Mr Taufua.

• This offence starts at Grade F. This is a serious case of misconduct and Mr Taufua has sought to seek an advantage by showing a complete disregard for the opponent’s welfare and the negative and derogatory manner in he has acted – contrary to the true spirit of the game with such actions having no place on the Rugby League field of play.

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

Player in attendance alongside Jason Hirst (CEO) and Brian Noble (Consultant). Player pleads Not Guilty.

JT addressed the Tribunal and talked through the incident. He explained that he was not a dirty player and that the tackle saw the opponents arm cover his airways, however, he did not bite his opponent. Any indentation caused to the arm of the opponent would have been caused by the opponent’s arm been used as a lever to bring him to the ground as the tackle was being completed. He reiterated that he did not bite the opponent and that this charge could be a stain on his reputation and character.

JH added that the club would not condone this kind of behaviour and that JT had no reason to bite the opponent as these actions would cost his team. The opponent did not receive any medical treatment following the incident and JT categorically denies biting. The opponent’s forearm is clearly across JT’s open mouth and this would have seen him struggling for ait, especially with him wearing a gum shield. The Referee did not react straight away and was at least 12 metres away from a tackle which involved several players.

BN then talked through the incident. He explained JT was put in a vulnerable position and would have panicked when his airway was blocked by the opponent’s arm. He felt the mark would have been caused by the force been applied by the opponent and that JT did not bite down. He felt that the evidence needs to be unequivocal. Whilst there is no blame on the Referee he felt that the actions were made after the complaint, not straight away. JT was calm in his actions and body language immediately after the incident and does not admit the offence.

JH concluded by vehemently denying the charge and thanks the Tribunal for their time.

Decision:

Guilty

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal reviewed the footage of the incident, read the Referee’s report and heard evidence from the Match Referee, Cameron Worsley, the opposing player Jarrad Stack and from Jorge Taufua. THE Tribunal also heard submissions from Gavin Wild on behalf of the MRP and from Jorge Taufua together with Jason Hirst and Brian Noble on his behalf.

The Tribunal are very grateful to all parties who conducted the hearing in a very helpful, courteous and professional way and for their helpful submissions.

The Referee Cameron Worsley said that after the tackle was complete he saw the arm of Jarrod Stack around the mouth of Jorge Taufua. He then saw a clear biting movement from Jorge Taufua and Jarrod Stack immediately lifted his arm and made a complaint. He then saw a bite mark on Jarrod Stack’s arm. He said he was 10 or 11 metres away and had a clear view of the incident. He then said there was a slight delay in sending Jorge Taufua off explaining that he was shocked as in 13 years as a Referee he had never seen a bite, he knew he would have to act upon it and he wanted to take a few moments to process what had happened including speaking to the Touch Judge bearing in mind the impact his decision would have upon both players.

He added he is a very experienced Referee and the Tribunal found him to be a very careful and considered witness who dealt with a very serious incident in a thoughtful and appropriate way and he clearly explained his reasoning.

He was sure that what he saw was a deliberate bite and was not accidental. In addition, he said that following the incident Jorge Taufua demonstrated the arm in front of his mouth effectively indicating that was the reason why he had bitten Jarrod Stack. He said this was not a case of Jorge Taufua being pushed back with an arm in his mouth resulting in teeth marks – he saw Jorge Taufua open his mouth and bite.

His evidence was supported by that of Jarrod Stack who said as his arm rose up in front of Jorge Taufua he felt something grasp down onto his arm, he felt teeth straight onto the bone on his wrist resulting in a sharp pain and knew immediately he had been bitten. He asked the Referee straight away to stop the game. He could see a clear dent in his arm as a result. He said it could not have been accidental. After the incident he said Jorge Taufua pointed at him and said your arm was near my mouth and gestured with his mouth as if biting him saying words to the effect of “what do you want me to do?” Tellingly in the Tribunals view, he said he asked the Referee to stop the game because he wanted to show the Referee the mark on his arm and he did not want to continue to play a game against someone who had bitten him. He accepted there was no blood and he received no treatment. The Tribunal accept his evidence. It is consistent with that of the Referee, is consistent with the footage (although the footage does not actually show a bite) and is consistent with his reaction at the time. He was aware of how serious the allegation was against a fellow professional.

Jorge Taufua told the Tribunal that he has been a professional player for over 13-years and has never been sent off before. He said he felt an arm placed forcibly on his mouth, blocking his airways and forcing him backwards, the arm being used as a lever. He said he did not bite Jarrod Stack. He said when he spoke afterwards he was trying to say that Jarrod Stack’s arm was in his mouth. He was adamant that he did not bite Jarrod Stack.

The Tribunal directed themselves in accordance with the relevant burden and standard of proof. The Compliance Manager bears the burden of proof and has to establish that On-Field misconduct has occurred to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation. The standard of proof is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is, of course, a very serious allegation.

The Tribunal accept the evidence of the Referee, Cameron Worsley that he saw a deliberate bite. He clearly had a good view of the incident and was shocked by what he saw. The Tribunal accept his reasoning for acting in the way he did thereafter.

In addition, he saw a bite mark to Jarrod Stack’s arm. No-one really disputes that such a mark was there. Jarrod Stack felt a bite and made an immediate complaint. There appears to have been something of an acknowledgment at the time from Jorge Taufua that he acted as he did because Jarrod Stack’s arm was in front of his mouth. The Tribunal found the Referee to be a truthful, careful, considered and compelling witness whose evidence was supported by the other evidence namely the immediate reaction of Jarrod Stack on the field, the evidence from Jarrod Stack of a deliberate sharp bite, the bite mark on the arm and the reaction of Jorge Taufua at the time.

In all those circumstances the Tribunal have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that we are comfortably satisfied that, albeit in the heat of the moment, Jorge Taufua bit Jarrod Stack on the arm and we find him guilty of the charge.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

Biting falls under rule 15.1(i) “Behaves any way contrary to the true spirit of the game”, which is self-explanatory in the unacceptable actions which Mr Taufua has inflicted on a fellow player.

This kind of conduct is not acceptable within the game, such is the grade attached to this action. It is accepted in 1.2 the “Underlying Principles” of the Sentencing Guidelines that “there is no place in the game for players who jeopardise the safety of others by intentional, dangerous or malicious acts.”

Due to the unnecessary and clear forceful nature of the injury sustained by Mr Stack the panel felt a Grade F charge was appropriate in this case.

Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

The club maintains there is no clear evidence and no puncture had been caused to the skin of the opponent.

The reiterated that JT had played Rugby League for 13 years and had a good previous disciplinary record.

Aggravating Factors:

22/05/23 – Dangerous Contact (Grade A – N/A)
24/04/23 – Dangerous Contact (Grade A – N/A)
27/02/23 – Dangerous Contact (Grade B – £250)

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal accept that although the bite left a mark the skin was not punctured. They also accept that Jorge Taufua has no previous similar matters and has never previously been dismissed from the field. However, this sort of behaviour is unacceptable and there is no place in the game for such conduct.

We have regard to the On Field Sentencing Guidelines which Grade biting as E-F. For the reasons set out above we find this is a Grade E offence but as there can be no credit for plea we impose a 6-match suspension. In addition, we impose a fine of £375.

Suspension:

6 matches