Case Number:

ON/333/24

Jack Ashworth #16, Hull FC

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Catalans Dragons v Hull FC

Match Date:

2024-03-09

Incident:

Head Contact

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (b)

Head Contact

Grade D

Fine:

£250

Sanctions:

3 Match Penalty Notice & £250 Fine

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Guilty but challenging the grading

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 11th March 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 40 40 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have contacted your opponent in the head or neck when attempting a tackle. 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 – Head Contact.

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

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

• The player was temporarily dismissed from the field of play.

• The referees report stated that “In the 35th minute of the match Chris Satae from Catalans is carrying the ball, Jack Ashworth comes in to make a tackle and clashes heads with Satae, It looked live like both players clashed heads and it had force in it, Satae then stumbles as trying to play the ball and other players come in to hold him up. The VR gets replays and advises that it’s a yellow card for the head-on-head contact and we send to the sin bin.”

• The MRP do not rely on the above report as they state the footage shows that this is shoulder contact by the tackler to the head of the ball carrier.

• The incident led to the ball carrier leaving the field and not returning.

• The Match Review Panel deemed this to be forceful and dangerous and that this was high level of force and danger. For a contact to the head with high level of force and danger, the entry grading the Match Review Panel submit is a Grade D charge.

• The Match Review Panel do not believe that there were any mitigating factors at play with regards this incident.

• The aggravating factors are:

- The ball carrier failed a Head Injury Assessment.
- The trajectory of the tackler’s shoulder/arm is always going towards the ball carrier’s head.

• The Match Review Panel believe that the aggravating factors are not sufficient to move this out of a Grade D.

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

The player was in attendance alongside James Clark (CEO) and pleaded guilty to the charge but challenged the grading.

The club accept there is head contact between both players.

They do not believe there is sufficient or conclusive evidence to determine that it was shoulder to head contact.

The video footage presented by the Match Review Panel is inconclusive.

The Match Official and Video Match Official state is was head-to-head contact.

The commentary team from the live broadcast observed the incident as head-to-head contact.

JA has testified he believes he may have made accidental contact with his own head.

The head contact framework states that head-to-head contact starts at Grade A and a maximum Grade C.

The entry point for the Grading is B, with the potential for mitigating factors to reduce this.

There are clear mitigating factors that highlight JA has taken appropriate steps to try and execute a tackle fairly.

The club accept that there is head contact and therefore with player welfare in mind, there are consequences to that, accidental or not.

However, we challenge that this should be graded lower in line with the framework. If the framework starts at Grade B, we feel we have demonstrated that mitigation could reduce this to a Grade A.

We also accept the Compliance Manager view that HIA/concussion is an aggravating factor, which in turn then may take this back to a Grade B.

With this in mind, we would ask the Operational Rules Tribunal to reconsider this incident as a Grade B charge.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal thank both sides for their submissions and they have considered this matter very carefully.

The MRP have submitted that this was contact with the shoulder of Jack Ashworth to the head of the ball carrier, with a high level of force or danger. They feel there were no mitigating factors on behalf of the player.

The club submit that this was not contact from the shoulder to the head but was head-to-head contact that was certainly not deliberate.

The Tribunal accept that this was not deliberate. They have reviewed the footage and read the Referee Report and note it’s findings. They have directed themselves to the burden and standard of proof the Compliance Manager must establish.

Bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation, the standard of proof is greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than a proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Tribunal have considered the Head Contact Sanctioning Framework and have worked with that.

The Tribunal cannot be reasonably satisfied that there was shoulder to head contact and therefore we work on the basis that this was head-to-head contact in the tackle. This was nevertheless reckless and it was still misconduct. Indeed, we note that the player accepts guilt and is here to just challenge the grading.

The grade of the charge is therefore reduced to Grade C. The Tribunal feel it should not be lower as it was aggravated by the fact the opponent was removed from the field of play and did not return after failing his HIA.

Due to his previous record the suspension has to be at the top of the range for that grade. The layer is therefore suspended for two matches. He is also fined £250.

Suspension:

2 matches