Case Number:

ON/1078/24

Zack McComb #3, Halifax

Competition:

Championship

Match:

Sheffield Eagles v Halifax Panthers

Match Date:

2024-07-05

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

Fine:

£500

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 11th July 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 29 12 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have used Unacceptable Language which is set out in the referee’s report. 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.

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

• Mr McComb was dismissed because of his actions.

• The referees report stated that, “After a coming together of players in approximately the 61st minute of the game, Zack McComb clearly shouted the word "xxxxxx" to a Sheffield player. I had originally walked over to McComb as he wasn't calming down after the original incident and appeared to be being held back by his team's physio, and that is when I clearly heard him say the word "xxxxxx" towards a Sheffield player.”

• The Match Review Panel felt the Player’s actions were unnecessary and against the true spirit of the game and brings the game into disrepute.

• The language used is derogatory and negative - term of abuse and disparagement towards persons whose sexual preference is for the same sex.

• In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel considered that such offence is a Grade F offence in 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.

• Unacceptable Language further defined in Operational Rules as:
means any comments, threats, chanting, discrimination (direct or indirect), harassment, bullying, victimisation, or incitement to hatred or abuse or any other action (implied, intended, or unintended) which targets individuals or groups on the grounds of: age, colour, ethnic origin, disability (including physical, sensory, cognitive, intellectual, mental illness or some chronic disease), gender identity, gender reassignment, marital or civil partner status, nationality or national origin political persuasion, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, socio economic background or is otherwise in breach of the Respect Policy, Tackle It or the RFL’s Equity Statement.

• Zero Tolerance approach of RFL towards such cases. Harsh sanctions with no exceptions. Pursuant to Zero Tolerance, Disability is a Protected Characteristic in the Equality Act 2010.

• The full definition of ULAB was in the mandatory online education this year.

• The normal suspension range for such offence is 6+ matches period of suspension.

• Verbal abuse based on nationality is unacceptable and has no place in the sport of Rugby League or society.

• The Panel had no option other than to issue a Grade F charge.

• Education to form part of any sanction imposed.

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

Player in attendance alongside Lian Finn (Head Coach). Player pleads not guilty.

LF explained that the audio used on the footage does not pick up and words that are used and this is a case of one person’s word against another’s.

The club are not questioning the integrity of the Referee and they do a good job; however, this is a grey area the panel need to be 100% sure the alleged comment has been said.

ZM then addressed the panel. He apologised for his actions in the ruck which had caused the melee of players to come together. He is not saying that the Referee has lied in his report, however, he was sure that he did not use the alleged word that he had been accused of and the Referee must had misheard him. He respects Referees and the job they do.

He added that he would not use the word that he had been accused off and then explained that he had been punched in the ruck just before the incident happened. He felt the opponent had been targeting him and they had exchanged words in the process of tackle.

When asked what words he did say towards his opponent ZM answered “Tik-Tok fat xxx.” He added he was upset at about the incident and reiterated that he had been misheard.

Decision:

Guilty

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal have reviewed the footage and heard evidence from the Referee.

They remind themselves in relation to the relevant burden and standard of proof. The Compliance Manager – on behalf of the Match Review Panel – bears the burden of proof and has to establish that the on-field misconduct has occurred to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal. Bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation, the standard of proof is greater than a mere balance of probability, but less that proof beyond reasonable doubt

The Referee was 100% sure that the alleged comment was said by the player, to the extent that he immediately sent him off. He repeated the fact that this comment had been made in front of other players and it appears there was no challenge from any of them. The Referee said he was fully aware of the serious nature of the allegation and having dismissed the player he knew the effect it would have on him.

Taking all that into account the Tribunal accept unequivocally the evidence of the Referee about what was said and are entirely satisfied to the required standard that this comment was said.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

The CM felt this kind of slur was sued all too frequently and it was not a very nice term.

The player has no credit for his plea and the RFL have a zero-tolerance approach to regards of this nature.

Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

LF reiterated that there was no clear proof about what had been said. He added the player was of good character and had a good previous disciplinary record.

The player is devastated with the outcome, and this will be a slur of his name.

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal are in agreement with the Match Review Panel that this type of slur is used too frequently and that there should be a zero-tolerance approach to this type of language.

They feel that this was clearly said by the player and done so when he was very angry indeed. The grading is correct at Grade F.

Taking into account the players plea and previous record the Tribunal impose an 8-match suspension and £500 fine.

Suspension:

8 matches