Case Detail
Case Number:
ON/1303/23
Brooke Price #29, Featherstone
Competition:
Womens Super League
Match:
Featherstone v Castleford
Match Date:
2023-07-30
Incident:
Biting at 39:46 minutes
Decision:
Charge
Charge Detail:
Law 15.1 (i)
Biting
Grade F
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 7th 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 39 46 footage time of the above match. The Match Officials report states the following “Castleford 2 (Allana Waller) came to the touch judge with the accusation that Featherstone 29 had bitten her in a tackle. Neither the touch judge nor myself had seen the incident occur. There was a visible red mark on the Walker’s arm, but no visible teeth marks. I told both captains that I will put it on report as none of the match officials’ team had witnessed the incident.” Based on the footage and the Report, The Panel believe that your actions constituted misconduct. 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 Ms Price was placed on report following an alleged biting incident.
• Ms Price takes a carry into contact with Ms Waller opponent being one of those making a tackle.
• As the tackle begins to go to ground, the footage shows Ms Price mouth near the left arm of Ms Waller.
• The MRP see no clear biting in the footage but note the reaction of the player, position of the arm in the relation to the opponents face and the TJ report where complaints of a bite in the tackle are heard.
• The referee takes report of a biting allegation at the next break in play. Both the referee and the touch judge reports there were no teeth marks evident, but there was a red mark.
• The referee’s report states the following:
Castleford 2 (Allana Waller) came to the touch judge with the accusation that Featherstone 29 had bitten her in a tackle. Neither the touch judge nor myself had seen the incident occur. There was a visible red mark on the Walker’s arm, but no visible teeth marks. I told both captains that I will put it on report as none of the match officials’ team had witnessed the incident.
The Touch Judge Report states:
Just before half time Featherstone no 29 ran the ball in, she was tackled by a few of the Castleford players and was in an upright position as Castleford were trying to push her back. In the tackle I heard a player from Castleford shout “stop biting me you fxxxxxx cxxx” I couldn’t see an attempted bite at any Castleford player but the player showed be her arm and there was a red mark but no teeth marks. The Featherstone player was wearing a gum shield and denies there was a bite. When Featherstone scored, I went to Milo to inform him of the incident
• The Match Review Panel are satisfied there is a case to answer for Ms Price, considering the evidence provided for a serious allegation such as biting. Biting is serious offence and as such a high sanction attached to these offences. The Match Review Panel have charged at Grade F due to the nature of the offence and demonstrates a complete disregard for the opponent’s welfare and the negative and derogatory manner in they have 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 Jac Davies (Manager). Player pleads Not Guilty.
PB talked through the tackle and explained she was been tackle by two or three opponents and as she was driven back an arm came across his mouth. This left her with a swollen lip and traces of blood. She did not hear anything shouted by the opponent such as “stop biting” and she denies biting her opponent.
The opponent (Allana Walker) was in attendance and was questioned by the Compliance Manager and members of the Tribunal. She described the incident as best she could and stated her and a team mate had been the tackle and drove PB backwards. She ended up “reversing” with her arms around PB as she clamped the ball. She then felt a bite but did not see it.
The bite was on the outside of her arm just below her elbow. It left a red mark but no teeth marks were visible and there was no puncture wound.
AW could not say if the bite was on purpose or not, however, she was convinced it was a bite. Following the completion of the play-the-ball she spoke to the Touch Judge and then reported the matter to the Referee.
Decision:
Not Guilty
Reasons for Decision:
Brooke Price (Brooke) is accused of biting Alana Waller (Alana) during a recent (30th July) WSL match between Featherstone and Castleford.
The video of the incident shows Brooke taking the ball forward towards the Castleford try line. She was then tackled by Alana and another Castleford player. Others then joined in and Brooke was driven back several yards before going to the ground. Alana then goes back into the defensive line without visibly any particular reaction. The Touch Judge does though report that she heard Alana during the tackle say she was bitten (using some profane language which Alana sys she did not use). Brooke says that she did not hear that being said. At some later point in the game the allegation of biting was drawn to the referee’s attention and the matter was put on report. None of the officials had seen a biting. There was a visible red mark on one of Alana’s arms although there was no breaking of the skin to demonstrate a biting injury. In response to the allegation Brooke said to the officials that she had not bitten anybody and was wearing a gumshield.
In these circumstances there is nothing to be seen on the video, either during the tackle or thereafter, to establish that there was a biting by Brooke. Further, save for Alana raising the complaint during the match, there is no objective evidence to lend evidential support to the allegation.
The case therefore revolves around the evidence that the Tribunal heard from both Alana and Brooke. Each of them presented as very decent individuals and the brief descriptions of their backgrounds & characters similarly shows them to be in employed in caring professions with family responsibilities at home. They each presented equally as well in the giving of their evidence.
Alana clearly and understandably found the experience of giving evidence difficult and stressful. Although she clearly said, and believed, that she had been bitten at some point in the tackle she was unable to really spell out the detail of what happened as the Tribunal sought to achieve clarity on what she said had happened. When asked to concentrate on whether there had been a deliberate biting as opposed to some other more ‘accidental’ contact with Brooke’s mouth area, she said that she couldn’t say if it was a malicious bite or not, which she explained to mean whether it was done on purpose or not. Similarly, her description of when and where the incident occurred was somewhat unclear. Although her coach said that he thought from the video that it must have occurred at the end of the tackle when Brooke was on the ground, Alana said that it happened when she & Brooke were upright and she had her arm round Brooke’s chest area from behind her and when somehow Brooke’s mouth had come into contact with her arm. In terms of where Alana said she had been bitten on her arm, she began by saying the red mark was just below the crease of her elbow on the inside but then she amended that description to say it was on the outside of the arm (which is a difficult mechanism to understand).
Brooke said that she was tackled and driven back as the video shows. At no point did she bite anybody. The first she heard of the allegation was a little later in the game when it was reported to the officials. Brooke denied she had bitten anybody to the officials and pointed out that she was wearing a gumshield. She made the same denials during her evidence to the Tribunal. She accepts that there may well have been contact between ger mouth and Alana’s arm when she was being tackled but that contact was not by way of a deliberate bite. Her coach pointed out on her behalf that there had been no reaction on the video from Alana that might show a reaction to her being bitten and he also made the point that the biting was not seen by any of the officials or anyone else so that the case fell back to what each of these decent young women said about the incident.
In these evidential circumstances the Tribunal reminds itself about the correct approach that it must apply. Paragraph 4.2 of the Misconduct Appendix in the Operating Rules states, “The Compliance Manager shall have the burden of establishing that On Field Misconduct has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Compliance Manager has established that Misconduct has occurred to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal with due regard given to the seriousness of the allegation which is being made. The standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Given the seriousness of this allegation of biting (a particularly reprehensible piece of behaviour) the Compliance Manager must establish the case to a high standard of proof.
Applying this approach to this case leads the Tribunal to conclude that the allegation has not been established to that high standard that is required. A verdict of “not guilty” must be recorded.
By way of postscript the Tribunal, would like to reiterate what it has already said about the basic decency and character of both of these young women. The Tribunal does not record Alana as giving anything other that what she believed to be truthful evidence. The Tribunal further reiterates what it said verbally in their brief oral judgement at the conclusion of the hearing. Namely, that both women can draw a line now under this matter and go on successfully with their rugby careers.