Case Number:

ON/0119/24

Ligi Sao #12, Hull FC

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Hull FC v Hull KR

Match Date:

2024-02-15

Incident:

Striking

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (a)

Other Contrary Behaviour

Grade D

Fine:

£250

Sanctions:

3 Match Penalty Notice and a £250 Fine

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 19th February 2024, 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 37 58 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have intentionally contacted the opponent’s head with your knee. In the Panel’s opinion they believed your actions to be misconduct and 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 D offence – Other Contrary Behaviour.

The normal suspension range for such offence is from a 2 to a 3-Match suspension and a fine.

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

• The player was dismissed from the field of play.

• The referees report stated that “In the 73rd minute of the match Hull FC No 12 Ligi Sao was in possession of the ball when Hull KR No 9 Matt Parcell made contact with the head of Sao. In retaliation, Sao twice intentionally kneed Parcell in the head with a high level of force and danger. Given this was an intentional act of retaliation and as Sao made full contact with the knee to the head twice, I dismissed him from the field.”

• The MRP will openly attest given the actions of Mr Sao’s opponent and the position Mr Sao found himself in that he has a right to some form of self-defence in respect of the first knee.

• However, the second knee to the head by Mr Sao where the player entangles himself and has sight of his opponent, the Match Review Panel submit is a clear act of retaliation.

• Such acts have the potential for serious injury.

• The Match Review Panel submit this is akin to throwing a punch, kick, headbutt to the head of the opponent and therefore that this should be graded as a Grade D.

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

Player in attendance alongside James Clark (CEO). Player pleads guilty but challenges the grading.

JC felt that the incident should be graded as Grade A to Grace C with the charge been one of “striking – light contact.”

The club feel that LS was not the aggressor in this incident. It is initially caused by two opponents who are tackling LS, one of which attacks his eyes and face, and other applies pressure to his windpipe and chest.

These actions left LS in a very vulnerable position. he is unable to move and is attempting to free himself from the position he is being placed in.

LS’s actions are necessary to protect himself as the Referee has not stopped the game and his only other option would have been to lay prone. This could have resulted in significant injury.

After reviewing the footage it is acknowledged that light contact is made with the head of the aggressor, but this action is not intentional.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal thank both sides for their submissions.

They are satisfied it is more akin to a push than a punch and it was in our view to get the player away from him and there was some separation from the earlier blow. That said it is clear that he was labouring under significant distress at the time or had in the short time before he aimed this blow.

However, these actions have to be punished as players need to be protected from blows to the head. Given the glancing nature of it and the clear provocation and therefore mitigation we consider Grade B to be the appropriate grading.

The player is therefore suspended for 1 match and fined £250.

Suspension:

1 match