Case Number:

ON/808/24

Jordan Gibson #7, Swinton Lions

Competition:

Championship

Match:

Swinton Lions v York Knights

Match Date:

2024-05-26

Incident:

Head Contact

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (b)

Head Contact

Grade E

Fine:

£250

Sanctions:

3-5

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Not Guilty

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 30th May 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 20 20 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have contacted the head of your opponent. In the Panel’s opinion this is serious misconduct, has the potential for serious injury and is 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 E offence – Head Contact.

The normal suspension range for such offence is 3 to 5 matches.

• Match Review Panel reviewed an incident in the above match.
• The match referee dismissed Mr Gibson from the field of play.
• The report stated that “Will Dagger was returning a kick towards the Swinton line. When contact was made, Jordan hit Will with his shoulder directly to the head. It was forceful and dangerous and no mitigating factors. I then sent Jordan from the field of play.”
• The MRP accept the footage does not show the point of contact however given the aftermath, have no reason to dispute the version of events given by the referee.
• The incident led to the ball carrier leaving the field of play and not returning. Subsequent information confirms that the opponent failed his Head Injury Assessment.
• 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:
- Tackler makes no definite attempt to change height to avoid the ball carrier’s head.
- The trajectory of the tackler’s shoulder/arm is always going towards the ball carrier’s head.
- Ball carrier fails HIA.
• The Match Review Panel believe that the aggravating factors are sufficient to move this to a Grade E charge.

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

Player in attendance alongside Alan Kilshaw (Head Coach) and Steve Wild (CEO). Player pleads Not Guilty.

SW felt that the Referee was not seven metres away as was stated in his dismissal report. He felt that JG had minimal re-action time and that he did dip into the tackle and his arms do attempt to wrap the opponent. He felt that the opponent also dips ahead of contact and this led to an increased chance of head contact.

Following the tackle there is no re-action from the opposing team and the club feel that the injury was caused by a clash of heads between the opponent and a teammate of JG who was also involved in the tackle.

Whilst the Referee has acted in good faith his comms make no reference to what part of JG’s body makes contact to the head of the opponent. JG is a clean player with no previous disciplinary issues and there is no intent involved with this tackle. He is just trying to tackle an opponent who is coming at pace.

JG was sent off following the tackle and despite his team being ahead at the time they ended up losing. The club don’t believe the burden of standard of proof has been met by the MRP.

AK then talked the panel through the tackle. He felt that in mitigation the opponent dips into contact and it was a “kamikaze” carry from him in what was a high collision tackle.

He felt that the teammate of JG had accidently clashed heads with the opponent and that JG does dip ahead of contact.

There is no intent from and he has a good tackle technique. The Referee has a split second to decide on the incident and the footage is not clear. JG is aiming to hit under the ball.

Decision:

Guilty

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal are satisfied that the charge of Head Contact is made out.

They feel that the Referee has been consistent in his approach with his dismissal report and has applied the sanctioning framework. The players contact with the ball carrier was forceful, dangerous contact. There was no mitigation on the face of it, there was no lowering of the ball carrier or indeed from the player of any consequence.

The panel do not think that the players teammate’s involvement had any real part to play in what happened, and any contact made – possibly to the chin area – saw no reaction at all from him.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal are in agreement that the grading of the charge at Grade E is correct.

They take into account the players previously clean disciplinary record and good character; however, they feel that they cannot go any lower than a 4-match suspension.

The player will also be fined £250.

Suspension:

4 matches