Case Detail
Case Number:
ON/1805/24
Peta Hiku #1, Hull KR
Competition:
Super League
Match:
Wigan Warriors v Hull KR
Match Date:
2024-10-12
Incident:
Making unnecessary contact with an injured player
Decision:
Charge
Charge Detail:
Law 15.1 (i)
Makes unnecessary contact with a Player who is or maybe injured.
Grade E
Sanctions:
3-5
Decision On Charge
Player plea:
Not Guilty
Summary of CM's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 14th October 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 15 22 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have unnecessarily contacted a player who was injured. In the Panel’s opinion this is serious misconduct, has the potential for serious injury and is 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 – Makes unnecessary contact with a Player who is or may be injured.
The normal suspension range for such offence is 3 to 5 matches.
• MRP were concerned at the way Mr Hiku contacts his opponent.
• The opponent has been contacted high by Mr Hiku. The opponent stays down after the incident.
• Mr Hiku can see that the opponent is in apparent distress but none the less proceeds to place his hand on his shoulder and move the opponent’s shoulder before releasing and then motioning to the sidelines.
• It is not for any player in any circumstances to have physical contact with a player who may be injured. Injured players need treatment from appropriately trained medical staff to ensure that any injury is appropriately managed in the initial stages and is not made worse.
• Whether a player is in fact injured, and if so to what extent, is exclusively a matter for the assessment of the medical staff in conjunction with any necessary match official input.
• Contact, of whatever type/force, from another player upon a seemingly injured player has the potential for serious medical consequences for that injured player.
• A note was sent to Clubs in 2022 in respect of this incident and within the communications it clearly states that “However, I thought it right that I write to you and ask you to make it clear to your players that under no circumstances, should they physically handle any player who appears to be injured on the field. There are strong policies and procedures in place for match officials and medical staff to deal with such incidents. We do not want to see players placing themselves in an invidious position where, whilst having the best of intentions towards a fellow player, they could unwittingly be placing a genuinely stricken player in more danger.”
• The incident was not part of play.
• This offence carries a possible Grading from E to F. In this case, the MRP were unsure of Mr Hiku’s intentions, but the MRP have no other option available too them given the clear instruction sent to Clubs with respect of such matters.
Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Player represented by Neil Hudgell (Chair) and Brian Stow (Head of Rugby Operations). Player pleads Not Guilty.
Routinely, this offence is made out when an offending player is lifting the injured player away from the ground.
Here, the injured player is involved in a heavy tackle with three players. PH is the second player to make primary contact. There is a secondary collision where three players fall on the player to complete the tackle, PH being one of them.
This incident and its three distinct parts were subject to a high level of scrutiny. Multiple replays were conducted at the time. The Referee saw no foul play, the Video Referee saw no foul play, and there was no reference to it post-match by commentators, reports or on social media. This incident was not missed, it was simply the case there was “nothing to see.”
Only the MRP found any purported wrongdoing.
It is clear that the injured player is prone and unresponsive.
At which point, PH moves his arm so that is sighted around the player’s face and mouth.
There is no lifting motion.
At this point, the player beckons medical staff onto the field.
The action is instant and based on instinct and in support of player welfare.
Initially, Jaie Field and Liam Marshall challenge PH on his actions. It is clear to both, very quickly, that they are satisfied of his intentions.
A letter of support is submitted from Matt Peet, Head Coach, Wigan Warriors.
The RFL submissions are unclear and contradictory.
Rule 15.1(i) makes it an offence “to make unnecessary contact….”
The RFL submissions proposition that any contact makes out the offence.
In support of which they produce a guidance note from February 2022 (more than 2 & half years ago) that is not enshrined in the rules.
If it is the case that this is an offence of strict liability it ought be properly captured in the rules, which are subject to periodic review and amendment, particularly in relation to head and neck contact.
In the circumstances the player’s instinctive actions in checking out the injured player’s welfare do not amount to unreasonable contact.
It would not be a good look for the game if a player in similar circumstances was left to swallow his tongue or choke on his own mouth guard because a player was directed to stand idly by.
Incidents of this nature need to be reviewed on an individual basis and determined accordingly.
Decision:
Not Guilty
Reasons for Decision:
In the Tribunal’s judgement the player was showing genuine concern for his opponent.
He was first on the scene and was best placed to decide whether the medics were required. He was gentle, he was instinctive. He was caring and as soon as he realised that help was needed, he moved away.
The Tribunal cannot call this unnecessary contact. If the rule makers wanted there to be no contact, they would have said no contact whatsoever.
There are obviously good policy reasons why they wouldn’t do that. If a player was in the far corner and the medics were 200 yards away and someone was choking on their tongue, whilst they may not be medically trained, they are first on the scene.
Accordingly, the panel have no hesitation in saying this was not unnecessary contact and the charge if not proved.