Case Number:

ON/997/24

Matthew Fletcher #32, Hunslet

Competition:

League One

Match:

Hunslet v Rochdale Hornets

Match Date:

2024-06-23

Incident:

Punching

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (a)

Punching – Punching– makes contact with the head of an opponent

Grade D

Fine:

£40

Sanctions:

2 Match Penalty Notice plus £40 fine

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Guilty, but challenge the grading

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 27th June 2024, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(a) during the above match.

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 01 29 00 footage time of the above match. In the Panels opinion you have punched your opponent to the 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 D offence – Punching – Punching – contacts the head of an opponent.

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.

• Mr Fletcher was dismissed because of his actions.

• The footage shows a confrontation taking place between Mr Fletcher and his opponent Mr Nelmes.

• The MRP on the footage can see that Mr Fletcher begins to swing his arm in a punching motion but concede that the footage does not show contact with the head or contact at all.

• The incident then breaks out into a melee and the Match Review Panel cannot see any further instances of punching within the melee.

• Therefore, the MRP refer to the referee’s report provided by referee Warren Turley.

• The referees report stated that, “In the 70th minute of the game, following a play the ball around 15 metres from the Rochdale goal line, Hunslet number 32 Matthew Fletcher got into a confrontation with Rochdale player Mr Luke Nelmes. Mr Fletcher had given Mr Nelmes a facial on the floor which led to the coming together. Mr Fletcher then proceeded to throw a number of punches towards his opponent’s head area. I got the players apart and dismissed Mr Fletcher from the field of play.”

• The Match Review Panel are therefore guided by the referee’s report in relation to the matter given his proximity and view looking at the footage.

• Grade D due to:
- Violent, unnecessary actions.
- Potential for injury. Area of concern for the game
- Violent act which brings the sport into disrepute and portrays the game in a negative light.

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

Player not in attendance but represented by Damian Irvine (Director) and Dean Muir (Head Coach). Player pleads guilty but challenges the grading.

DI explained that whilst MF was guilty of an offence it was not the one that he had been charged with.

The club felt that a more appropriate charge would be “Attempted Strike” Law 15.1 (i). The grading for this offence is from a Grade A to C.

Warren Turley (Referee) then joined the hearing to give evidence and be cross-examined.

Whilst not questioning the Referees integrity, DI felt that the dismissal report was unreliable.

The club explained that in the proceeding tackle MF gave his opponent a facial and there was a verbal exchange between the pair. Having returned to second marker MF does not make the first move towards his opponent, in fact the opponent walks towards him. The pair then hold on to each other for a matter of seconds before MF swings at his opponent, although it does not land. The swing is low and does not connect. It’s not towards the head area.

The club feel the footage shows that it is not possible to throw multiple punches as they just don’t have time to do so. DI added that the Referee was very clear that the opponent also landed a punch. This is not the contention of the MRP, otherwise the opponent would have been charged with this same offence.

DI understood the confusion as there are a lot of players in the vicinity, however, the MRP have to prove the charge. We are talking about a young players career who is facing a two-match suspension on what he feels is guessing on so many things by the Referee.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

The player is charged with a Grade D offence of punching and making contact with the head of an opponent for which he was issued with a penalty notice. He is now challenging that.

We have viewed the footage again numerous times and listened to a single witness Warren Turley (the Referee). When asked by the Compliance Manager he initially told us that he saw punches being thrown, there was more than one punch being thrown and that this was done without a shadow of doubt.

He was then asked a question by the Chair. He answered that punches had landed and he saw a couple of punches land to the head area. He was then asked questions about the content of his dismissal report, in which he expressed the view that the player proceeded to throw a number of punches towards his opponent’s head area, as opposed to saying they actually landed. He was asked again questions about why he didn’t say that the punches had landed. He replied he didn’t think that was necessary to say because he wasn’t certain they had landed and he wanted to be accurate.

He described the position of the players as being toe-to-toe and said he was about 10 metres away and there was nobody in between him and the two players so he had a good view.

We didn’t hear from the player and therefore we were not able to evaluate his evidence and so we look at Warren Turley together with the footage to consider whether he is somebody credible and reliable.

We find that he is reasonable. He was clear in his evidence, appeared balanced and we find it to be accurate. His expression that he had “no shadow of doubt” is something which he clearly felt to be correct and we accept his evidence.

The standard of proof that we have is that we must be reasonably satisfied that the charge is proved, and indeed we are.

We find that there were several punches thrown and that they landed and in those circumstances, this must be graded at Grade D. The two-match suspension together with a £40 fine for the player will therefore be upheld, and the club will lose it deposit on bringing the challenge.

Those are our findings.

Suspension:

2 matches