Case Number:

ON/1323/18

Tom Lineham #2, Warrington

Competition:

Super 8s

Match:

Wigan v Warrington

Match Date:

2018-09-14

Incident:

High tackle in the 68th minute (Manfredi)

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Rule – 15.1(b)
Detail – When tackling or attempting to tackle makes contact with the head or neck of opponent – Reckless – Tried to tackle but reckless about outcome
Grade – C

Sanctions:

3 Match Penalty Notice

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Guilty, but challenging the grading

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 17th September 2018 you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(b) during the above Match.

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in approximately the 68th minute of the above Match. You were temporarily dismissed following this incident. In the Panel’s opinion during making a tackle you made contact with the head of opponent (Manfredi). The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary and had the potential to cause your opponent injury.

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade C offence (Dangerous Contact - Defending player, in or after effecting a tackle, uses any part of his body forcefully to bend or apply unnecessary pressure to the head and/or neck and/or spinal column of the tackled player so as to keep the tackled player at a disadvantage in or after the tackle). The normal suspension range for such offence is from 2 – 3 match suspension.

The MRP were very concerned by the nature of the contact made.

They are not submitting that Mr Lineham has made intentional contact with the head of Mr Manfredi and they accept this was a genuine attempt to tackle. The MRP felt that Mr Lineham was reckless in the manner in which he made contact.

Mr Manfredi running away from Mr Lineham. Mr Lineham gives chase and grabs hold of back of shirt with left hand. Mr Lineham’s right arm is swung backwards, past the line of the body. His fist is clenched. The MRP accept that the clenched fist does not make contact and the fist unclenches during the swing.

The MRP submit that the clenched fist is indicative of an attempt to generate force in the swing of the arm. Mr Lineham’s arm comes over Mr Manfredi’s shoulder and makes forceful contact to the head. Mr Manfredi’s head moves on contact.

The MRP submit that Mr Lineham should have been aware that there was a possibility of Mr Manfredi going to ground given that he had a firm grip on his opponent. The MRP also felt that Mr Lineham could not see where he was likely to make contact.

They were safer alternative ways to tackle and players cannot complete tackles by any means necessary. Players must be deterred from making contact with the head of opponents and must show a duty of care towards opponents.

The MRP felt Grade C appropriate due to the level of force used and the reckless nature of the tackle attempt.

In response to the Comparison Clip that was shown Mr Hardman (RFL Compliance Manager) was in agreement that it was a good clip to show. He stated that like the clip of the incident in question both show defenders in motion who are not looking at the point of contact, both have the same contact area and both have opponents moving downwards. He also felt that the comparison clip showed the tackling player could predict his opponent was dropping down and that the same could be said for Mr Lineham’s tackle. He added that the MRP felt both tackles were reckless and that players have a duty of care to not make contact with the head of their opponents.

He then explained the definition of the term “reckless” as per the Sentencing Guidelines and that contact in this tackle was clearly forceful. He then added that only by good fortune was no injury caused to Mr Lineham’s opponent.

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

The player attended the hearing alongside along with his Head Coach Steve Price, Football Manager Kylie Leuluai and legal representative Richard Cramer.

Mr Cramer opened the players response and told the Tribunal that the player himself would start off their submissions.

Mr Lineham talked the tribunal through the clip of the incident. He explained that he was trying to dislodge the ball when completing the tackle and had his eyes on the ball whilst trying to do so. His arm was swung backwards to generate the power in order to force the ball free. He told the tribunal that his opponent dropped in height as the tackle took place and that his hand had an open palm on impact. He also said that his arm ricocheted off the ball before contact was made with the head. He had no intent to cause injury and grabbed the shirt to “wrap” the tackle. He added that the opponent got up straight away after the tackle.

Mr Price than gave the tribunal he thoughts on the tackle. He explained it was not forceful and that Mr Lineham had his eyes on the ball at all times. He said that Mr Lineham’s hand is open at the point of contact and that the opponent dropping in the tackle also had a bearing on how the tackle was completed. Whilst contact is made to the head he felt that the initial contact was on the ball. He concluded by saying no injury was caused to the opponent.

At the request of the club a Comparison Clip was then played (Hastings – Salford v Toronto – 08/09/2018) which was also graded at Grade C. Mr Price explained that he thought this tackle was far worse than the current charge and stated that the player in question has his fist clenched and was done intentionally on an opponent that was off-guard following the catching of a high kick.

Mr Cramer then explained to the Tribunal that the incident took place at a critical time of the game and that Mr Lineham had at no time wanted to cause injury to his opponent.

He was of the opinion the Comparison Clip showed the defender was not looking at the ball and that the player in question was also charged at Grade C. He thought that the charge been challenged in this hearing was careless rather than reckless and directed the Tribunal to the definition of careless in the Sentencing Guidelines.

Decision:

Penalty Notice Challenge successful

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal are agreed that the player did enter the tackle intent on dislodging the ball. It is clear that his eyes were on the ball and that the reason for his arm swing was to generate enough force to successfully complete the above.

The Tribunal feel that the pulling of the opponents’ shirt was directed back towards the defender and not in a dragging down motion, this therefore meant that the lowering of the attackers head was not obvious to the defender. Half way through the dropping of the attackers height the defender was carrying out the tackle and at that stage he was unable to alter his approach to completing it.

The Tribunal therefore feel that this was a “careless” act rather than “reckless” and agree it should be downgraded to Grade B. This results in Mr Lineham receiving a 2 match suspension, the first match of which should include his standing down for selection of Warrington’s game last weekend.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Aggravating Factors:

20/03/2017: Striking – 2 matches

Suspension:

2 matches