Case Number:

ON/1768/23

George Williams #6, Warrington Wolves

Competition:

Super League

Match:

St Helens v Warrington Wolves

Match Date:

2023-09-30

Incident:

Late contact on passer

Decision:

No charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (k)

Shoulder Charge - Other dangerous Shoulder Charge

Grade B

Fine:

£500

Sanctions:

1 Match Penalty Notice

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Guilty, but challenging grading

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 2nd October 2023, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(k) during the above match.

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 24 34 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have used a shoulder charge towards 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 B offence – Shoulder Charge - Other dangerous Shoulder Charge.

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.

• The opponent can be seen to take the ball towards the line towards Mr Williams.

• Mr Williams upon seeing his opponent come towards him has his arm tucked to his side.

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

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

• This was not a legitimate attempt to make a tackle.

• The player has moved forward into contact so is not simply bracing for impact.

• This is a reckless and forceful act.

• The opponent receives medical attention following the incident.

• Grade B due to:
- Contact is late.
- Player does not attempt to moderate contact at all.
- There is no attempt to make a legitimate tackle. The player has used an illegal technique when contacting the opponent.
- Forceful contact shown by movement of opponent’s head.
- Potential for injury.

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

Player represented by Gary Chambers (Acting Head Coach). Player pleads guilty but challenges the grading.

GC explained that GW had injured his shoulder and was unable to wrap his arm around the opponent in the normal way that a tackle would be performed.

He explained the opponent ran directly towards GW which meant he had no other choice but to make contact. The actions of the opponent left GW with nowhere to go. He could not move out of the way and he had no other option.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

The MRP argue that this was forceful contact by Mr Williams using an illegal tackle technique, namely with the shoulder.

Mr Williams makes no effort to moderate his behaviour or the point of contact. The contact was forceful and there was flexion of the head and neck of the opponent. As such his actions were reckless and the grading of the charge is Grade B.

Mr Chambers argued on behalf of the player that this was an unavoidable collision. The opponent made his way directly towards Mr Williams and Mr Williams did not alter his course, whilst the reason Mr Williams did not seek to make a fair and legal tackle was that at this time, he was carrying an injury which makes it impossible for him to raise his arm and wrap it in any way.

The Tribunal are in agreement that this argument holds little sway with them. If a player is forced into making illegal tackles because of an ongoing injury then he should not in our view be playing in the game. The safety of an opponent is paramount.

In this instance – Mr Williams could have taken avoiding action even if he could not tackle properly and he did not do so. Such action as leading with the shoulder into an opponent creates an obvious risk of a dangerous collision and consequent injury and therefore, we are reasonably satisfied that this was a reckless act. The grading at Grade B is appropriate in this instance and the challenge to the penalty notice is therefore dismissed.

Furthermore, the Tribunal feel that this charge was always one which should be charged at Grade B. With that in mind the challenge can only be seen as frivolous. Accordingly, the suspension is therefore increased by a further match.

Suspension:

2 matches