Case Number:

ON/1254/24

Jonny Lomax #6, St Helens

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Leigh Leopards v St Helens

Match Date:

2024-07-26

Incident:

Head Contact

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (b)

Head Contact

Grade E

Fine:

£750

Sanctions:

3-5

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 29th July 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 15 36 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have contacted the head and neck of 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 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 sin binned the player following the incident.
• The report stated that “On approximately 1.19.25 minutes into the game Lomax hits O’Brien high and late off the ball. The contact is forceful and dangerous making contact with the head but low-level force. I then temporarily dismissed Lomax from the field.”
• The MRP state that the footage clearly shows Mr Lomax making contact with his shoulder/upper chest to the head of his opponent Mr O’Brien.
• 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 Mike Rush (CEO) and Paul Wellens (Head Coach. Player pleads guilty but challenges the grading.

The club felt that the contact was caused by a push from a teammate of JL’s. They also felt that contact was head-to-head rather than shoulder to head.

They were of the opinion that JL was in a normal tackling position and that both he and the opponent dropped their height
The club added that data from JL’s mouthguard showed that contact had been made to his head.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

The footage and the submissions have been made on behalf of Johnny Lomax, who was charged with a breach of law 15.1 (i) as a result of an incident which occurred during the match on 26th July between Leigh Leopards and St Helens.

The particulars of the charge is that he contacted the head or neck of his opponent, the charge is graded at Grade E. The charge is admitted, it is the grading which is challenged.

We have reviewed again the footage of the incident, we've listened to submissions on behalf of the Match Review Panel and on behalf of the player.

The Match Review Panel submit that the contact was dangerous and that a high level of force was used. They submit that there were no mitigating factors. In particular the player made no attempt to change his height to avoid the ball carrier's head, that the shoulder or arm was always going towards the head.

That the ball carrier failed his head injury assessment is an aggravating factor in those circumstances. The Match Review Panel have submitted that this is a Grade E charge. We've considered the Temporary Dismissal Report by the Referee. His view was that the contact was forceful and dangerous but used a low level of force. He therefore issued a yellow as opposed to a red card.

We've balanced that against the footage that we saw. We apply and we emphasise the Head Contact Sanctioning Framework. That is what it is there for.

On behalf of the player, it's submitted that the contact was caused in part by a push from behind. We disagree with that.

It's suggested that this is head on head contact as opposed to shoulder to head. Under the Head Contacting Sanctioning Framework that doesn't matter.

Because examples of a high level of either force or danger are that contact is made to a ball carrier's head, either by a head or the shoulder of the tackler, it is submitted that this was a normal tackling position. We disagree with that.

It suggested that both players drop their heights. We don't agree with that. In particular, the tackler didn't drop his height. It suggested that this was an accidental contact.

Again, we must apply, and we do, the Head Contact Sanctioning Framework.

Insofar as the data from the gum shield is concerned, we simply don't have that data. We rely upon the footage and the resulting injury.

We've therefore referred ourselves to the framework and we find that the contact was made with the ball carrier’s head or neck, in this case head, by the tackler’s either shoulder or head, it doesn't matter.

We've just considered whether there was a high level of force or danger, or whether it can properly be described as low level. We note that the high level of force is assumed when contact is made to the ball carrier’s head either by the head or the shoulder of the tackler.

We note also that this does not fall within what is only an example of low-level force such as when a contact is made to the ball carrier's head by the hand or arm of the tacklers.

Accordingly, we find that this is a high level of either force or danger.

We have considered whether there are any mitigating factors. We find that the tackler was clearly not bent at the waist or knees in order to make a legitimate contact with the ball carrier.

The ball carrier did not unexpectedly or rapidly lose height or change direction. The tackler did not make any attempt to change his height to avoid the ball carrier’s head.

The initial contact was not a reaction to an unexpected situation and the head contact was neither indirect or secondary.

We've also considered the aggravating factors and identify that the ball carrier was removed from the field of play and did not return. The tackler made no definite attempt to change his height to avoid the head contact.

The trajectory of the tackler’s head or shoulder was always going towards the ball carrier’s head.

In those circumstances we consider that the Grade range of D to F carries with it an expectation that if there are sufficient aggravating factors then the grade can be increased. In our judgement given the aggravating factors and the lack of mitigating factors, this incident has properly been charged as a Grade E.

Next we look at the penalty, three to five matches, and we take into account that the player has a good record. Indeed, it is exemplary. He has played many matches for St Helens without any form of penalty.

We also give him credit for his acceptance of guilt, albeit he challenged the grading, that is credit which he is entitled to in our judgement.

In all of the circumstances we impose a suspension of three matches and the usual fine of £750 pounds, that is our determination.

Suspension:

3 matches