Sylvester Namo #21, Castleford

Competition:

Challenge Cup

Match:

Castleford Tigers v Wigan Warriors

Match Date:

2024-04-14

Incident:

Dangerous Contact

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Laws 15.1(b)

Dangerous Contact - Defender uses any part of their body forcefully to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.

Grade F

Sanctions:

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Not Guilty

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

1. Sylvester Namo (‘SN’) was the 3rd tackler of the ball carrying Willie Isa (‘WI’) during the recent (13th April) Castleford v Wigan Challenge Cup match. At the end of the tackle SN’s knee impacted on WI’s ankle and caused him a very serious, and seemingly season ending, injury.
2. The Match Review Panel considered that tackle yesterday (14th April) and deemed it to involve ‘Dangerous Contact’ contrary to Rule 15.1(i) (see above). They deemed it to extend beyond the ordinary range of sentence for this type of offence (ordinarily a Grade A-D offence with the D categorisation carrying a suspension of 2-3 matches together with a fine). They concluded that the offence should be considered as a Grade F offence with a suspension (& fine) of 6 matches in order to reflect the terrible outcome for WI. Accordingly, the case has been referred to this Operational Rules Tribunal this evening.
3. SN, supported this evening by his Head Coach, Craig Lingard, indicated that he did not accept that he had committed any offence in making the tackle that he did. Mr Lingard said at the outset that SN and his club Castleford did not regard AN’s tackle as anything other than an unfortunate rugby incident that had unhappily caused a serious, but wholly unintended, injury. This could not be regarded as a ‘Dangerous Contact’ offence. Therefore, a plea of Not Guilty was entered to the alleged offence.
4. The MRP was represented by Gavin Wild. He had submitted a Skeleton Argument in which he explained the view of the MRP. As the 3rd tackler SN moved at speed towards WI who was already being tackled and substantially stopped in going forward by 2 other Castleford players. Although SN’s initial point of contact was with WI’s thigh, his knee was in an unacceptable position as he was coming into contact and applying pressure to WI’s leg. In that way he was not in control of his actions. This was a reckless tackle and SN had failed to show an appropriate duty of care to his opponent in acting as he did. Mr Wild expanded on his Skeleton Argument verbally. He accepted that the initial contact was not illegitimate but he argued that AN did not moderate his contact thereafter in order to prevent the injury. AN was ‘highly reckless’ and a very serious injury resulted. He likened what happened with AN going to the floor above IS, with his knee landing on the back of WI’s ankle, as akin to a sort of ‘drop tackle’ (although he was not saying that this was a ’drop tackle’ in the ordinary sense of that expression).
5. AN said in his own brief account that he had no intent to injure WI. He had gone in as the 3rd Tackler to chop tackle WI. He had kept going forward and contacted WI in the hip area. Then as both of them had gone to the ground his knee had unfortunately landed on the back of WI’s ankle.
6. Mr Lingard expanded on AN’s case. He said that it was not accepted that AN had approached the tackle in any uncontrolled fashion nor at any excessive speed. The initial contact in the hip area was not objectionable or unnatural and as that initial contact was made WI’s foot was not on the ground. AN could not have held himself, or WI up, given the dynamics of the tackle. Having made the initial contact AN was then hit on the head by his own player who was involved in making the tackle on the other side of WI. That made AN somewhat groggy so that he was unable to make very little, if any, adjustment to what was happening in those split seconds thereafter.
7. The Tribunal carefully considered this evidence and the competing submissions. AN did approach WI from the side at speed and in a situation where, although still making some very limited forward progress, WI was already being substantially tackled/held by two other Castleford players. Although AN’s initial contact was not unfair, and in the hip/thigh area, he then continued onwards into WI and in going then to the ground he came down on top of WI thereby making the heavy and objectionable contact with the back of WI’s ankle that caused the very serious injury. In these circumstances the Tribunal must conclude, as argued by the MRP, that this contact was reckless and dangerous with AN not being sufficiently in control of his actions. The Tribunal looked very carefully at the video and stills of the incident and although there seemed to be some limited contact between AN and the Castleford tackler on the other side of WI, that contact did not seem substantial and seemed to be more on the chin of the other tackler if anything. There was no HIA assessment. In reality that contact did not seem to add anything much at all to what AN did and his culpability for WI’s injury.
8. The Tribunal announced their Decision to find the case proved briefly and orally. In doing so the Chair repeated the use of the shorthand expression that had been used by Mr Wild of ‘drop tackle’ and, in doing so, said that this was like a sort of drop tackle situation although not in anything like the classical sense of that expression. The Tribunal then said that it wanted to consider the issue of Sanction and invited submissions on that subject.
9. Having adjourned for a second time to discuss the question of sanction the Tribunal reconvened. At that point Mr Grattan ‘complained’ that the Tribunal had dealt with this case as a case of it being about a ‘drop tackle’ which was not the case that the RFL had raised and which they had prepared to meet. As was verbally then explained to Mr Grattan, although both Mr Wild and the Tribunal had used that shorthand expression (albeit qualifying it substantially) in order to describe AN coming down on top of WI, the nature and substance of this case had never changed and it had not been dealt with on any other basis than that that had been consistently discussed verbally and in writing.
10. Finally, as far as the issue of sanction is concerned the Tribunal depart from the MRP’s views. Although the seriousness of WI’s injury does take this case beyond the ordinary sentencing range for a Grade D offence, it does not go as far as a Grade F categorisation. Taking the level of AN’s culpability into account, together with his good disciplinary record, and balancing that against the high level of harm that has been caused, the offence should be categorised as a Grade E offence leading to a suspension of 5 matches (together with the accompanying standard fine of £750).

Case Number: