Case Detail
Case Number:
ON/0128/24
Ricky Leutele #4, Leigh Leopards
Competition:
Super League
Match:
Leigh Leopards v Huddersfield Giants
Match Date:
2024-02-16
Incident:
Head Contact
Decision:
Charge
Charge Detail:
Law 15.1 (b)
Head Contact
Grade C
Sanctions:
1 Match Penalty Notice
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(b) during the above match.
The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 01 08 07 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have contacted the opponent’s head. 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 C offence – Head Contact.
The normal suspension range for such offence is from a 1 to a 2-Match suspension.
• Match Review Panel reviewed an incident in the above match.
• The referee in consultation with the video referee decided to sin bin Mr Leutele following the incident.
• The reports stated the following:
“After a high kick in which Ricky Leutele is offside, he approaches the catcher (Jake Connor) with speed. Connor goes to catch the ball and then rapidly drops to the ground as catching it. Leutele then comes over the top and makes some shoulder contact on the back of Jake Connors head, the drop in height has got to be expected here so the mitigation isn’t clear, the video referee recommended a sin bin and i went with that advice. Live i thought the contact was forceful but i wasn’t sure exactly how much contact with the head there was at full speed.”
• The MRP in viewing the footage see no reason to disagree with this position.
• For a contact to the head with low level of force, the entry grading the Match Review Panel submit is a Grade C charge.
• It is the position of the Match Review Panel that the mitigating factor present here was that the Tackler makes a definite attempt to change height in an effort to avoid the ball carrier’s head.
• The Match Review Panel do not believe that the mitigating factor whereby the Tackler clearly bent at the waist and/or knees to make contact with ball carrier legally and ball carrier unexpectedly and rapidly loses height/changes direction (where deliberate, penalty may be reversed), and tackler unable to adjust can be applied in this instance as a drop in height has to be expected when a player is catching a high ball.
• Equally the Match Review Panel do not believe that the Head contact is indirect or secondary (initial contact to body, then minor contact to ball carrier’s head) point can be factored in as the contact to the ball carriers head in this instance was not minor contact.
• The aggravating factors are:
- Tackler approaches contact at high-speed and is out of control
- Trajectory of tackler’s head, arm or shoulder always going towards ball carrier’s head
• The Match Review Panel believe that this matter should therefore be graded as a Grade C offence
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 the club’s contention that there was no initial or deliberate contact with the head and that the player’s injury came from the forceful way his head hit the playing surface from the impact of players landing over the top of him. Furthermore, that the actions of Ricky were not against the spirit of the game and during effecting his tackle he had to avoid an action that he and the club deem were against the spirit of the game.
The club will use footage from both Opta and its own footage of the game which offers a different angle along with stills taken from that footage. It will also use statements from the player, the head coach, and head of rugby to support what the footage shows. In addition, It will also rely on the Head Contact Sanctioning Framework and make reference to the matchday report submitted by Jack Smith.
The head contact sanctioning as attached clearly states that contact to the ball carrier’s head or neck by the tackler on contact will be deemed a high tackle unless any mitigating factors are evident. It is the club’s submission that point 2 in that document is clearly satisfied as Ricky is bent at the waist and knees to make contact legally and the ball carrier rapidly loses height unnecessarily. Point 3 is also fully satisfied as it is evident that Ricky makes a definite attempt to lower his tackle height to avoid the ball carrier’s head. Whilst it is the club and players contention that there isn’t contact with the head, we would argue that if there were it is as per point 5 indirect or secondary as the initial contact is clearly with the back of the shoulder.
Image 0 shows Connor leap to catch the ball with the legs in an expected position.
Image 0A shows Connor extend his leg out displaying his studs this can be better viewed as a moving video. He has used his leg to strike out in a defensive manner to deter a tackler which impacted on Ricky. He has then gone to ground unnecessarily to avoid a big impact after catching the ball.
Image 1 shows that Ricky has clearly bent his back and knees almost to the ground to effect the tackle as low as possible. It further shows that contact is made with the back of the player not his head and that Ricky has wrapped his arms to effect the tackle and at this point has given up his sight by the positioning of his head.
Image 1A from a different angle demonstrates the intent of Ricky as, although at a split second before contact, you can see the height at which Connor is when Ricky has given up his sight and committed to tackle Connor lower than he finishes up with the initial contact due to Connor’s continual loss of height.
Image 2 although a little blurry shows the horizontal angle of Ricky’s body when committed to the tackle and again the intent of where to place contact and a good low technique compensating for the player losing height.
Image 3 is the most defining image to demonstrate that contact with the head did not take place. Having made contact with the shoulder as seen in image 1 you can see from this image that when Ricky’s shoulder is in line with Connor's head it is clearly above it and clear separation from it deeming it impossible to have hit his head with his shoulder.
The Referee had blown his whistle for a penalty for offside on Ricky which was correct. Due to the injury to Connor, he stopped the clock and as per his report took advice from the video ref as would be expected. He states that Ricky “approached with speed” and was “forceful” but he wasn’t sure how forceful at full speed and how much contact was made with the head. This is completely understandable as it takes breaking footage down frame by frame to ascertain that. It is also stated that “mitigation isn’t clear” because a loss of height should be expected. However, Jack Smith states that Connor “Rapidly” drops to the ground after catching it and we would argue that this is not to be reasonably expected and it is why Ricky comes over the top completely out of the tackle. Whilst the footage shows there was no contact with the head given the player stayed down and appeared hurt and was receiving treatment it is understandable and reasonable as to why the referee assumed contact to the head.
We would like to make the point that if Ricky was travelling forcefully at speed and made initial contact with Connor’s head then it would be highly likely he would have lost consciousness or at least needed to leave the field for a HIA. No medical green card was submitted after treatment meaning Connor had to leave the field for two minutes having received treatment as the game had been stopped for the offside, not the injury, so is technically dead at that point. Despite two physios and a doctor, Connor was not requested to leave the field, not in their opinions in need of a HIA which we believe supports the fact which can be seen that there was no contact to the head but a whiplash experience where you can clearly see his head hit the ground forcefully. This would also seem to tie in with the footage when Connor regains his feet and is holding his neck as one would expect for whiplash rather than holding his head had it had a forceful bang.
We take note of the match report stating that the medical team had told the referee that Connor was fine to continue. The fact that 15 minutes later they decided to take him for a HIA cannot have any bearing on this incident as that could have been attributed by anything that happened in those 15 minutes and it was clearly the opinion of the doctor and physios at the time of this incident that he did not need to leave the field.
Ricky makes every attempt to affect a good hard tackle on a player as he lands from catching a kick and reasonably allows and adjusts for loss of height. He changes his position to avoid a leg kicking out displaying studs and effects his tackle, making contact with the shoulder and no contact with the head having adhered to the framework as set out by the RFL. The rapid loss of height that cannot reasonably be expected made the force look higher than it was as it resulted in Ricky coming over the top of Connor and out the other side.
Decision:
Not Guilty
Reasons for Decision:
The real issue for the Tribunal and the prime issue in the case is a fairly straightforward one. It is whether there was any contact between the shoulder of Ricky Leutele and Jake Connor at all.
We have looked at the angles of footage provided both by the MRP and also by the club. We reminded ourselves that we need to be reasonably satisfied that there was head contact before we progress to look at other matters.
None of us are satisfied that reasonably satisfied that there was head contact. We can see some separations and we are influenced to an extent by the single shot footage, but we reminded it ourselves that that shows a fraction of a second only.
We have found it much easier to look at the moving footage and asked ourselves, are we reasonably satisfied that there was head contact and the answer to that question is no?
Therefore, the charge fails.
However, we go on to say this that when we looked at the sanctioning framework, we have also reached a conclusion that there are mitigating factors.
The tackler was clearly bent at the waist and or knees in order to make contact with the ball carrier legally, and the ball carrier unexpectedly and rapidly loses height.
We found we find both of those matters apply to Ricky Leutele.
Secondly, the tackler makes a definite effort to change height in an effort to avoid the ball carrier’s head. We find that Mister Leutele also did that.
Thirdly, is head contact is indirect or secondary?
Well, yes, it was. However, we then look at the words in the brackets (of the framework), “initial contact to body, then minor contact to the ball carriers head.”
We're less sure or less satisfied that the contact to the ball carriers head was minor but we don't need to get that far.
We find that there are between two and three mitigating factors and having listened to what's the Compliance Manager told us this evening that very fairly, if there are two or three mitigating factors, then there would have been no charge in the first place.
So, on two different counts, but most importantly, the lack of head contact or the lack of our satisfaction that there was head contact.
The charge, which faces Mr Leutele is dismissed.