Case Detail
Case Number:
ON/1003/24
Fenton Rogers #34, Bradford
Competition:
Championship
Match:
Bradford Bulls v Doncaster
Match Date:
2024-06-23
Incident:
Unacceptable Language
Decision:
Charge
Charge Detail:
Law 15.1 (f)
Verbal abuse based on race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, national or ethnic origin or any other form of Unacceptable Language and/or Behaviour
Grade F
Sanctions:
6+
Decision On Charge
Player plea:
Not Guilty
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(f) during the above match.
The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 01 34 55 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have used Unacceptable Language based on disability by using the word “******” towards your opponent. The Panel believe your actions were serious 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 F offence – Verbal abuse based on race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, national or ethnic origin or any other form of Unacceptable Language and/or Behaviour
The normal suspension range for such offence is 6 matches plus.
• The Match Review Panel were concerned at the behaviour of Mr Rogers.
• The incident was placed On Report.
• The referee’s report states the following:
As I placed a scrum down to Doncaster, Xxxxxx and Rogers began to push and shove. It was at this point, as i begin to allow the scrum to reform and begin the game Rogers was alleged to have called an opponent a “******”. Players began to shout at Rogers after this and brought it to my attention. As i did not hear what Rogers had said i placed the incident on report and continued with the scrum.
• In addition, 3 Doncaster players have provided statements in relation to the incident.
• Witness 1, stated the following:
I heard Fenton Roger’s call Xxxx Xxxxxxx a ****** at the scrum
• Witness 2 stated the following:
In the first instance the player (Fenton Rodger’s) started with a push and shove and head butting in scrum, (handbags in my eyes). He then continues to shout rant and rave, in which he said to me personally “your only known for been a ******”, amongst other comments which are not relevant. Myself, Xxxxxx and Xxxxx all heard this and Xxxxxx reported this to the ref.
• Witness 3 stated the following:
Has the video shows and the RFL and referee should clearly see It was Xxxxxxx and Rxxxxx who were pushing each other in the scrum while packing down. Then Roger’s called Xxxxxxx a ****** amongst other things. Then the referee called the captains to calm the situation down from the pushing and shoving at the scrum. Then Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx approached to make a report to what Roger’s had said. Which I did hear.
• The Match Review Panel see no reason to disbelieve the accounts provided by the Doncaster players.
• Mr Rogers can be seen in dialogue with players at the scrum.
• The reaction from the Doncaster players is immediate and this is raised to the referee immediately.
• This amounts to Unacceptable Language based on disability pursuant to the RFL’s definition as per the Operational Rules.
• Word used is derogatory and negative - term of abuse and disparagement towards disabled individuals and squarely falls under RFL’s definition of Unacceptable Language.
• The Panel believed that Mr Rogers’s actions were unnecessary, against the true spirit of the game and brings the game into disrepute.
• In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a breach of Law 15.1(f) – Verbal abuse based on race, colour, religion, gender, sexual preference, disability, national or ethnic origin or any other form of Unacceptable Behaviour or Language.
• Zero Tolerance approach of RFL towards such cases.
• Verbal abuse based on disability is unacceptable and has no place in the sport of Rugby League or society.
• Mr Rogers’s standards have fallen below what is expected of a player and amount to Misconduct.
• Education to form part of any sanction imposed.
Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Player in attendance alongside Brian Noble (Football Consultant). Player pleads Not Guilty.
FR talked through the incident and explained that during the course of a verbal exchange he used the words “I’m not retaliating” and did not use the words he had been accused of.
The hearing then saw several witnesses join to give their evidence and be cross-examined. This included Ryan Cox (Referee), plus two witnesses from Doncaster and three from Bradford.
Decision:
Not Guilty
Reasons for Decision:
The allegation is that the player used verbal abuse based on disability, which was unacceptable language.
This is essentially a question of fact for the Tribunal members to determine. We bear in mind that the MRP bring the case and must prove it to standard so that we are reasonably satisfied that the allegation is made out.
We have heard evidence from a number of sources. The first was the Referee who told us that he did not hear anything specific being said. He was close by and next to two witnesses as the scrum was about to form.
One witness (Doncaster) did not attend. He did join briefly but due to him driving was not able to talk to us. We therefore can read nothing into his evidence whatsoever.
A Doncaster witness did join the hearing and told us that he had heard Fenton Rogers say something. First of all, he said something about an opponent being xxxxxx, then following some backwards and forwards he then called the opponent a “******”, something that he was particularly sensitive to.
On the other hand, we heard from Fenton Rogers himself, whilst we also had the ability to view footage. He appeared to remain calm at all points during the course of the exchanges and did confirm he had said “shut up you xxxxxx” to the opponent, and then when receiving abuse himself said “I’m not retaliating” which caused the eruption. He also told us he would not use the sort of word he is alleged to have used, namely “******.”
He was backed up by a Bradford witness who was stood next to him. He said, whilst things got heated Fenton did not lose his temper, but he had said something about xxxxxx and the opposing side just said effectively “you can’t say that.” According to the witness, Fenton did say “I’m not retaliating.”
That was the theme when another Bradford witness brought before us.
We found the Bradford witnesses to be credible, consistent and we were satisfied that they were telling the truth. We had no assistance from the Referee, but obviously he has been truthful by confirming his report in saying he had not heard anything.
In terms of the Doncaster witness, we do not find that he told us lies, but it seems to us that there is room for mistake in his evidence when balanced against the evidence of the players from Bradford.
Whilst we are in no doubt that there were heated conversations going on, we are not satisfied that the player called his opponent a “******” or anything like that. He may have been abusive in a different way.