Case Number:

ON/1756/24

Aiden Roden #9, Rochdale

Competition:

League One

Match:

Keighley Cougars v Rochdale Hornets

Match Date:

2024-09-22

Incident:

Dangerous Throw/Lift

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (d)

Dangerous Throw/Lift

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 23rd September 2024, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(d) during the above match.

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 41 40 (second half) footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have lifted your opponent into a dangerous position. 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 – Dangerous Throw/Lift

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 Roden was dismissed following the tackle.

• The Referees report stated that “As the Keighley player ran the ball in he was tackled by Rochdale's no.9 and then lifted him into a dangerous position over the horizontal with his head hitting the floor, after consolation with my TJ Andrew Sweet I dismissed Roden from the field of play.”

• Mr Roden, the Match Review Panel submit can be seen to lift his opponent into a ‘Dangerous Position’ as defined in the Laws of the Game.

• Using the factors set out in the guidance note the Panel note the following:

- Mr Roden goes to ground with the ball carrier.
- The ball carrier is significantly lifted above the ground.
- The ball carrier’s hips have been turned almost 180 degrees
- Mr Roden is in control of the tackle and unnecessarily lifts the opponent into a dangerous position.
- The ball carrier lands on his head, neck and shoulder.

• Based on the above factors the Match Review Panel felt this necessitated a Grade D charge in line with the guidance note.

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

Player in attendance alongside Gary Thornton (Head Coach) and Andy Mazey (Chair). Player pleads guilty but challenged the grading.

AR talked the panel through the tackle. He told the panel that there were no bad intentions from him and this kind of tackle doesn’t happen very often. He has a good previous record. He had made good first contact and the incident was unfortunate and took place 71 minutes into the game.

GT addressed the panel and said there was no malice involved. Whilst the tackle was reckless there was no intent. Whilst the Touch Judge had told the Referee that the opponent had landed on his head, the club believe that contact was on his shoulder/chest/elbow. Without the Touch Judges input the club believe that AR would not have been sent off and just a penalty would have been awarded.

AR makes over 30 tackles a game and he got this one wrong. Any contact that was made by the opponents head was secondary.

AM informed the panel had a good previous record and was of good character. He felt that the actions of the opponent during the course of the tackle may have contributed to the way it ended. AR’s intention was to make a good tackle and the club are now entering a critical time of the season.

GT added if the tackle had ended with the opponents head making contact first then Grade D would be appropriate. The club do not feel this was the case and he also noted the opponent was not injured.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal have very carefully reviewed the footage several times and have listened carefully to the submissions that have been made. They direct themselves in accordance with the appropriate burden and standard of proof.

They accept that there was no malice on behalf of the player and that this incident was out of character, however, it was without doubt and is accepted that this was a dangerous throw.

The Tribunal therefore turn to the factors in guidance note on Dangerous Throws and they find that the player did go to ground with the ball carrier, that the ball carrier was significantly lifted above the ground, and the ball carriers’ hips have been almost turned 180 degrees. The player was in control of the tackle and therefore unnecessarily lifted the opponent into a dangerous position.

The Tribunal do find that the ball carrier landed on his should/neck and then his head and face hit the ground.

Therefore, applying the guidance the panel are in agreement with the Match Review Panel and uphold the grading at Grade D.

Suspension:

2 matches