Case Number:

ON/1315/24

Suaia Matagi #10, Doncaster

Competition:

Championship

Match:

Doncaster v Barrow Raiders

Match Date:

2024-07-28

Incident:

Late contact on passer

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (i)

Dangerous Contact – A defending player makes contact with an opponent after the ball has been released by an opponent in a vulnerable position which causes flexion to the head, neck or spinal column on an attacking player, which poses an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.

Grade C

Sanctions:

2 Match Penalty Notice

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 1st August 2024, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(i) during the above match.

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 20 37 footage time of the above match. In the Panels opinion you have contacted your opponent after the ball has been released causing flexion to the head and neck. 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 C offence – Dangerous Contact – A defending player makes contact with an opponent after the ball has been released by an opponent in a vulnerable position which causes flexion to the head, neck or spinal column on an attacking player, which poses an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.

The normal suspension range for such offence is from a 1 to a 2-Match suspension.

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

• It is misconduct as soon as a player has contacted an opponent who does not have the ball.

• In this case Mr Matagi, it is clear on the footage, has contacted the opponent after the ball has been released causing flexion to the head and neck of the opponent.

• The Match Review Panel apply the guidance note for late contacts on passers and kickers in this instance.

• The Match Review Panel opinion is that the following:

- Defending player approaches the tackle in an uncontrolled manner – e.g., enters the tackle at speed
- The defending player fails to moderate his behaviour
- The nature and type of the contact is unnecessary and/or avoidable
- Considerable flexion of head, neck or spinal column to opponent

• Therefore, the MRP are of the opinion that this is a reckless contact which carries a Grade ranging from B to D.

• Assessing all those factors present within this incident, the Match Review Panel are of the opinion that this necessitated a Grade C charge.

• Grade C because of the following factors:

- Speed of approach. Player is clearly ahead of the defensive line.
- No moderation of contact. Player contacts opponent with upper body and moves on.
- Nature of contact. Player contacts opponent in the back. Player has no opportunity to prepare and ready himself for the contact.
- Considerable flexion of the head and neck can be seen as contact is made.

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

Player in attendance alongside Chris Plume (Assistant Coach). Player pleads guilty but challenges the grading.

CP accepted that contact was late and there was flexion to the neck of the opponent, however, the club felt that SM did adapt his approach ahead of making contact.

He then talked through the incident and said that SM was defending and pushing out to halfback who was approximately 20 metres from the try line. SM has a pronounced running style and in his last two strides he reduced the length of his stride in order to try and slow down. This was a considered approach towards an opponent who had already thrown a dummy as he approached the defensive line.

CP felt that contact was made with a “chest bump” and also had open arms on contact. He did try and mitigate the contact and the club believe the grading of the charge should be lower.

SM addressed the panel and said that the Referee and Touch Judges had taken no action at the time. The Referee did not give a penalty and the audio between them all has said that he was committed to the tackle.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal thank both sides for their submissions.

They have watched the footage several times and are of the opinion that the grading at Grade C is correct. Contact to the opponent is late, is done at speed and caused flexion to the opponent’s neck. This is a reckless act.

They do not think that contact is made via the players chest, they feel it is more shoulder and that contact is into the back of the opponent. Whilst the club feel that the player moderated his approach the Tribunal do not feel that this is case and they cannot see any real moderation.

Whilst the Match Officials did not take any action at the time, they have a split second to make a decision and can look back at their games when the review them.

The Tribunal do not believe that the challenge to the penalty notice was frivolous or unreasonable. Therefore, the two-match suspension outlined in the penalty notice remains. The club will also lose the £250 bond that was lodged to bring the challenge.