Case Number:

ON/1780/23

Matty Lees #10, St Helens

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Catalans Dragons v St Helens

Match Date:

2023-10-06

Incident:

Dangerous Contact

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (i)

Dangerous Contact - Defending player, in or after effecting a tackle, uses any part of their body forcefully to bend or apply unnecessary pressure to the head and/or neck and/or spinal column of the tackled player so as to keep the tackled player at a disadvantage in or after the tackle.

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 9th October 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 16 54 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have applied pressure to the head and neck in affecting a tackle. 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 - Defending player, in or after effecting a tackle, uses any part of their body forcefully to bend or apply unnecessary pressure to the head and/or neck and/or spinal column of the tackled player so as to keep the tackled player at a disadvantage in or after the tackle.

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 run the ball towards Mr Lees who contacts the opponent initially.

• Two of Mr Lees team mates then join the tackle with one ‘up top’ and one going low around the opponent.

• The opponent puts his head down and continues to drive with his legs.

• Mr Lees then changes his left arm from the back of the opponent to hook around the opponent’s right arm initiating a grip with his right arm already gripped around the body of the opponent.

• The tackle is then destabilised, and the tackle begins to move sideways before Mr Lees falls on top of the head/neck and spinal column of the opponent.

• The MRP submit that pressure has been applied.

• Mr Lees in applying the grip he has, must be aware of the position of the opponent’s head.

• Whilst the MRP accept there is involvement from Mr Lees teammates, the player has not at any point in the tackle looked to release the grip and create space for the opponent’s head to come through.

• This is a reckless act the MRP would submit.

• The opponent receives medical attention following the incident.

• Grade B due to:
- The player has initiated a grip so is or should be aware of the position of the opponent’s head.
- The player never at any point looks to release the grip and create space for the opponent’s head.
- Pressure has been applied.
- Potential for injury.

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

Player not in attendance but represented by Mike Rush (CEO). Player pleads guilty but challenges the grading.

MR explained that he did not think there was any unnecessary pressure applied by ML and that this was an accidental incident.

ML did not deliberately go out to put the opponent in the position he ended up in and the way the tackle ended up was unavoidable.

MR felt that the teammates involved in the tackle were as much to blame and that at no time did ML “lose his legs” as the tackle progresses.

The opponents’ actions also contributed to how the tackle ended as he dipped his head, backed into the defenders and at one-point hops on one leg and it’s completed.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

The MRP’s case is that after the initial tackle by Mr Lees he then changes his grip upon the opponent and this leaves the opponent’s head in a position where it is below Mr Lees.

The tackle is then destabilised, and the tackle begins to move sideways causing Mr Lees to lose his feet and he falls to the floor on top of the head/neck and spinal column of the opponent. The opponents is locked in by the grip that Mr Lees has. This grip creates an obvious risk that unnecessary pressure is going to be applied to the neck of the opponent and Mr Lees does nothing to lessen that risk. He should, they say, have released that grip and allowed his head to come free.

The charge was accepted but the challenge was to the grading. It was argued that it was more accidental and that the player had not deliberately gone out to put him in the position or to lose his feet. No serious strain was put on the player. Initially the opponents head is over the top and to the side of Mr Lees, it was then the opponent who dips his head and puts it underneath. Mr Lees does change his grip but not to put him in a dangerous position.

Mr Lees’ teammate rotates the opponent around at a time when he is still moving and the opponent is always going away from Mr Lees. The opponent also had a chance to move his head. A teammate of Mr Lees is also having an impact on the tackle – indeed as much as Mr Lees – and Mr Lees gets dragged along and ends up in a vulnerable upside-down position. Therefore, at best the actions of Mr Lees are careless.

The Tribunal have not found this an easy case. It is clear that very late in the tackle there is pressure applied to the neck of the opponent by Mr Lees as he comes down on top of him as the tackle is completed. But it is important to recognise that there were a number of factors which led the tackle to reach this position.

Firstly, the opponent was moving throughout, this was the cause of Mr Lees changing his grip initially, it was the opponent who put his head in beneath Mr Lees in the first place. At the beginning, the tackle was upright and the players only went to ground as a result of the actions of the opponent’s continued movement and the actions of Mr Lees’ teammate taking hold of the opponents’ legs and rotating him.

Mr Lees was almost himself taken to the floor by this rather than by his own motion. Accordingly, the risk to the opponent came very late in this quick moving incident. The Tribunal are not reasonably satisfied that given each of those factors the actions of Mr Lees can properly be categorised as being reckless. Any risk was very late in this incident and fleeting and therefore we consider it was careless and grade it at Grade A.