Case Detail
Case Number:
ON/708/25
Jess Sharp #15, York
Competition:
Women's Challenge Cup
Match:
York Valkyrie v Leigh Leopards
Match Date:
2025-04-27
Incident:
Biting
Decision:
Charge
Charge Detail:
Law 15.1 (i)
Biting
Grade E
Sanctions:
+4
Decision On Charge
Player plea:
Not Guilty
Summary of CM's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 1st May 2025, 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 28 58 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have bitten your opponent. The on-field report is attached with the letter. 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 – Biting
The starting suspension range for such an offence is 24 points plus (4 matches plus).
• The Panel reviewed an incident whereby Miss Sharp was placed on report by the match referee.
• Miss Sharp takes a carry into contact and is tackled by her opponent.
• In the tackle the opponent can be seen to get her arm in tight around the head area of Miss Sharp.
• The referee’s report states the following.
“In a tackle Jess sharp and a leigh player come together, After the tackle the leigh player claims a bite has been make, i was shown the mark with a full bite mark on the arm. I place the incident on report.”
• The Match Review Panel cannot see in the footage provided the biting action taking place.
• The Leigh Leopards club forwarded a photograph which they allege shows a biting injury.
• Taking the photographs into account, and the footage showing the instant reaction of the opponent, the Match Review Panel were satisfied that Miss Sharp had a case to answer.
• This offence starts at Grade E. This is a serious case of misconduct and Miss Sharp has sought to seek an advantage by showing a complete disregard for the opponent’s welfare and the negative and derogatory manner in she has acted – contrary to the true spirit of the game with such actions having no place on the Rugby League field of play.
Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Player in attendance alongside Lindsay Anfield (Head Coach). Player pleads not guilty.
JS & LA argued that the bite was accidental and unintentional. JS emphasised that she was struggling to breath during the tackle, which led to the accidental bite. LA supported LS’s account and added that the incident was not mentioned by the Referee or Touch Judge during the game.
Decision:
Not Guilty
Reasons for Decision:
The Chair explained that the Compliance Manager bears the burden of proof and must establish that On-Field misconduct occurred to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal. The standard of proof is greater that a mere balance or probability but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Due to the very serious nature of the allegation the standard of proof is set just below beyond reasonable doubt. This ensures that the decision is made with a high level of certainty.
Emma Baggaley described the incident as involving a deliberate bite to her arm. She claimed to have shouted at least twice to JS that she was biting her. The Tribunal note that no evidence was provided by EB’s colleague who was also involved in the tackle. This absence of corroborating testimony was significant in the Tribunals deliberations.
The Chair highlighted the lack of medical, dental or orthodontic evidence to support the claim the injury was consistent with a deliberate bite. This lack of evidence contributed to the Tribunals decision.
Taking everything into account the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that there was a breach of the Operational Rules and that the injury was a deliberate bite. As a result of the inconclusive evidence the Tribunal find JS Not Guilty and the charge is dismissed.
JS was clearly struggling to breath during the tackle and this could have contributed to the accidental infliction of the injury. This context was important in the Tribunals decision.