Case Number:

ON/1531/23

King Vuniyayawa #10, Salford

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Wigan Warriors v Salford Red Devils

Match Date:

2023-09-01

Incident:

Late contact on passer

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (i)

Dangerous Contact – A defending player makes contact with an opponent after the ball has been released by an opponent in a vulnerable position which causes flexion to the head, neck or spinal column on an attacking player, which poses an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.

Grade B

Fine:

£250

Sanctions:

1 Match Penalty Notice

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Guilty, but challenge the grading

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 4th September 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 01 32 23 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have contacted your opponent after the ball has been released causing flexion to the head and neck. 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 B offence – Dangerous Contact – A defending player makes contact with an opponent after the ball has been released by an opponent in a vulnerable position which causes flexion to the head, neck or spinal column on an attacking player, which poses an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.

The normal suspension range for such offence is from a fine to a 1-Match suspension.

• Match Review Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in the above match.

• Mr Vuniyayawa lines up directly in front of his opponent Mr Shorrocks.

• Mr Shorrocks takes the ball off the ruck and comes towards Mr Vuniyayawa.

• Mr Vuniyayawa upon seeing Mr Shorrocks catching the ball sets off at pace towards his opponent.

• Mr Vuniyayawa has an unobstructed view of the ball.

• His opponent Mr Shorrocks does not fully engage his opponent and passes the ball.

• Mr Vuniyayawa contacts his opponent after the ball has been released.

• There is significant flexion of the players head/neck area.

• The player has time to ensure he does not make the forceful contact that he does with his opponent. There were no adaptions made by Mr Vuniyayawa prior to contact.

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

Player represented by Ian Blease (Director of Rugby) and Paul Rowley (Head Coach). Player pleads guilty but challenges the grading.

PR felt that this incident was different to the ones that are normally seen. The opponent is running at pace and KV is moving a slower speed. This charge usually sees players hit from behind however this is not the case in this instance.

KV cannot slow down and has 0.2 seconds to react after the ball has been passed by the opponent. This therefore means a collision has to happen. KV tries to wrap his arms around the opponent and contact between the players legs leads to the collision. The players are almost running straight at each other and KV is doing a great job in the defensive line. There is no significant flexion to the opponent’s head/neck and there is a delay in him falling to the ground. The opponent is not vulnerable as he is running at the defenders.

IB added that there not flexion involved to the opponent and this was careless not reckless. KV has got to try and make a tackle on the opponent. The opponent is running from about right metres away whilst KV runs from just the four.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

• Grade B due to:
- Contact is late.
- Player does not attempt to moderate contact at all.
- No attempt to steady off or slow down into contact.
- Forceful contact shown by movement of opponent’s head.
- Potential for injury.

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal thank both sides for their submissions.

They are in agreement that opponent was running at the player at speed and committing the player and that contact was late. However, the Tribunal have come to the conclusion that the player did not have time to mitigate the contact that occurred. Whilst there was some flexion to the opponent, the Tribunal feel that this was careless rather than reckless.