Case Detail
Case Number:
ON/0123/24
Jack Hughes #12, Leigh Leopards
Competition:
Super League
Match:
Leigh Leopards v Huddersfield
Match Date:
2024-02-16
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
Sanctions:
£250 Fine
Decision On Charge
Player plea:
Not Guilty
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 19 24 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have contacted the opponents after the ball has been released causing flexion to the head and neck. 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 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 in the above match.
• The MRP apply the guidance note for late contacts on passers and kickers in this instance.
• The MRP opinion is that the following:
- The defending player fails to moderate his behaviour
- The nature and type of the contact is unnecessary and/or avoidable
- Considerable flexion of head, neck or spinal column to opponent
• Therefore, the MRP are of the opinion that this is a reckless contact which carries a Grade ranging from B to D.
• Assessing all those factors present within this particular incident, the Match Review Panel are of the opinion that this necessitated a Grade B charge.
Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Player in attendance alongside Derek Beaumont (Chairman), Chris Chester (Head of Rugby), Neil Jukes (CEO) and Adrian Lam (Head Coach). Player pleads Not Guilty.
It is the player’s and club’s contention that the contact was not dangerous, did not pose an unacceptable risk of injury to the player and did not cause flexion to the head neck or spinal column. Indeed, it is the club’s position that the attacking player initiated the contact and that Jack acted correctly and as instructed by his coaching team and the RFL Framework.
The club will demonstrate this using the footage from Opta and its own footage from the opposite angle along with stills taken from both sets of footage which are attached.
The description of the footage is supported by statements attached from Adrian Lam (Head Coach) Chris Chester (Head of Rugby) and the player Jack Hughes.
The images and footage clearly demonstrate that Jack Hughes was doing his job correctly pushing up and across to pressure the attacker to make the pass early so he could push across himself to slide the defence across to defend the shift man on man.
It is clear that the attacker passes the ball on the halfway line whilst Jack Hughes is around 2ft from the halfway line with his left foot ahead of his right (image 1 and 1A)
After passing the ball the attacker continues forward and turns his back into Jack Hughes who is still in relatively the same position, still with his left foot forward. Had he advanced it is natural that the right foot would now surpass the left. Jack Hughes has planted his feet ready to map off, or effect a tackle (image 2) and in Image 2A from the opposite side where you can clearly see he has wrapped his arm correctly to protect as directed.
The attacker continues to back further into Jack Hughes as he turns, which effectively is done to cause an obstruction to the player being able to map off and continue defending as he is blocked from moving across (image 3). You can clearly see at this point Jack Hughes has still not made any momentum forward; all the movement forward is from the attacker and Jack Hughes is still positioned in the same place with his left foot ahead of his right foot. Image 3A shows the immediate point of separation where Jack Hughes is still in the same place and stance and the attacker is more towards where he made the pass. Jack Hughes’ attention is clearly focused on the ball and moving across.
Image 4 clearly shows Jack Hughes in the same position on the field still left foot forward having pushed off to map sideways and the attacker back where he had passed the ball, and it could be argued should have stopped having done so rather than effect a block on the defender from mapping off. All images and the footage collectively show that there was no flexion to the attacking player.
The game is played at a fast pace and is a contact sport. It is inevitable contact will take place when a ball has been passed and the passing player continues momentum forward having done so. The defending player has a split second to determine the pass has been made and back out of a forceful tackle and effect a wrap so as not to have unnecessary forceful contact or taking to the ground. Players must act reasonably to protect themselves as well as their opponents and therefore should not carry on forward into a defensive line when they have made the pass. It is clear Jack Hughes does not move forward and does not go through the player.
There is no forward placing of the foot, and it is clear to see that the intention is always to push off to keep the defence man on man. There is no flexion, the arm is wrapped, and the player does not go to ground. Had the pass prior to the attacking player’s pass not been blown up as a forward pass, the play would have continued, and the attacking player would have benefited from his smart play as Jack Hughes had not been able to get across and they had created a 2 v 1 from the move. There was no penalty from the Referee for the contact and no complaint from either player as it is part of the game of rugby league and both players engaged as they would be coached to do so.
Decision:
Not Guilty
Reasons for Decision:
We have been reviewing the incident which took place involving Jack Hughes, when he engaged with a ball carrier in the match between Leigh and Huddersfield.
The charge is that of Dangerous Contact, specifically that is making contact on an opponent after the ball has been released, causing flexion to the head and to the neck.
The Tribunal note a plea of Not Guilty by the player following the issuing of a penalty notice by the MRP.
The opinion of the MRP is that the defending player had failed to alter his position to moderate his behaviour, that the nature and type of the contact was unnecessary or unavoidable, and that there was considerable flexion of the neck, head or spinal column. This was, in other words, reckless contact and they graded it as a Grade B charge.
On behalf of the player Mr Beaumont has expressed the view that the defending player does not move at all. He just stands where he is and the ball carrier advances towards him. The impact was largely as a result of that as opposed to anything else.
There are largely two issues. The first is as to the flexion. We find that there was flexion, but that it was mild or at its highest moderate in terms of contact.
The suggestion by the MRP is that Jack Hughes propelled his right shoulder forward upon contact. We find the defending players position was poor in a situation in which we have a big man against a little man and care has to be taken.
The attacking player we find was moving forwards and it was the attacking player who moved into contact with Jack Hughes. Jack Hughes simply stood his ground.
He braced himself for the contact and at that distance – maybe 1 or 2 metres – contact was unavoidable and inevitable. In those circumstances, we don't think that there is anything else that Jack Hughes could have done to avoid this contact.
He did not wave his arms around and he did not create a greater impact than was inevitable, and in those circumstances, we agree that the challenge to the penalty notice is successful.