Case Number:

ON/189/19

Joel Tomkins #11, Hull KR

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Hull KR v Salford

Match Date:

2019-02-23

Incident:

Uses offensive language to Match Official in the 64th minute

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Rule – 15.1(f)
Detail – Questioning integrity of Match Official
Grade – D

Fine:

£500

Sanctions:

3-5

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Guilty plea but challenge the grading at Grade D

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on25th February, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(f) during the above Match.

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in approximately the 64th minute of the above Match. In the Panel’s opinion, you used foul and abusive language towards a Match Official and questioned the integrity of the Match Official. The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary and constitute Misconduct. You specifically used the language twice.

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade D offence (Uses offensive or obscene language - Questioning the integrity of a Match Official). In accordance with the On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the normal suspension range for such offence is 3 to 5 matches.

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

Player in attendance and accompanied by Chairman Neil Hudgell. Player pleads guilty and accepts the use of Foul and Abusive language on two separate occasions towards a match official but over a short period of time.

Player accepts there was no excuse for his language. Mr Hudgell argues there was no aggression towards the official and it was a heat of the moment reaction to what the player believed was an incorrect decision.

It was in the 65th minute of an emotional game and the player believed that he had got the ball down and scored try. The language was not personal and there was no aggression towards the official. The grading for this type of offence stretches from B to F. The player has pleaded guilty and shown considerable contrition. It was the heat of the moment incident and the player has a reasonable disciplinary record.

In support of this application to down grade the player outlines a similar offence committed by a player (Barlow) who was charged with a similar offence at Grade D. This player pleaded not guilty, showed physical aggression towards the official and at that time had a previous disciplinary record. This player received a 3-match suspension. In this instance there was no aggression towards the officials, and it is argued this should be graded at Grade B rather than a Grade D. It is requested that the tribunal can step outside the normal sanction taking into account these mitigating factors outlined.

Decision:

The Tribunal have considered the submissions made by the player and his representative in relation to the grading of this offence including the comparable incident involving player Barlow.

This Tribunal are satisfied this grading was correct at Grade D. There was some aggression by the player and it is conceded that foul and abusive language was used on two occasions.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

MRP feel Grade D is appropriate for the following reasons.
1) Player is aggressive towards official
2) Players uses Foul and Abusive Language and questions the integrity of the official by using the word “cheat”
3) The abuse is repeated twice

Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

Player accepts his guilt and concedes he used Foul and Abusive Language towards the official through frustration and in the heat of the moment in reaction to a decision he thought was incorrect.

Accepts this was not acceptable. No aggression shown towards official and of the opinion that the sanction is disproportionate compared to the comparison clip which shows player displaying aggression towards the official.

Player has long playing record and good previous disciplinary record.

Aggravating Factors:

15.03.11 – Grade B – Striking with hand (2matches)
13.06.16 – Grade A – Dangerous Throw (NFA)
X2 Cautions – Other Contrary Behaviour & Dangerous Contact

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal have carefully considered this matter and discussed the decision of penalty at length.

From the outset this Tribunal wish to make it clear that the abuse of a Match Official and the questioning of his integrity is taken as a serious matter.

In making the decision the Tribunal have taken into consideration the submissions made by the player on the comparable offence that was graded at Grade D and received a 3-match suspension. In that case the player was aggressive towards the official, did not accept his guilt and had a poor disciplinary record. In this instance the Tribunal felt that the repetition of the abuse warranted a similar grading.

However, taking into account this players acceptance of guilt, his considerable remorse shown and his previous good record in a 14-year career this Tribunal can take the exceptional course of action and go outside the grading.

This tribunal wish to point out that this decision should not be used as a precedent for future cases but believe taking into account all the circumstances a 2-match suspension and a £500 fine are appropriate.

Suspension:

2 match suspension (1 match suspension already served the previous week so I additional match still to be served)