Case Number:

ON/1479/18

Fui Fui Moi Moi #25, Workington

Competition:

League 1

Match:

Bradford v Workington

Match Date:

2018-10-07

Incident:

High tackle in the 68th minute

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

Fine:

£75

Sanctions:

3 Match Penalty Notice

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Not Guilty

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 8th October 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 dismissed following this incident. In the Panel’s opinion during making a tackle you made contact with the head of opponent (Kirk). 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 (High Tackle – Detail – When tackling or attempting to tackle makes contact with the head or neck of opponent – Reckless – Tried to tackle but reckless about outcome). The normal suspension range for such offence is from 2 – 3 match suspension.

The MRP were concerned with the manner in which Mr Moi Moi makes contact. They noted that Mr Moi Moi comes off the defensive line at high speed and has a clear view of his opponent and had the entire body of his opponent to make contact with. Mr Moi Moi choose to make contact in a manner which was very reckless.

The MRP considered Mr Moi Moi’s actions as reckless because he has run at speed, he chooses not to make a low tackle and he jumps into contact. By jumping into contact this means that there is an obvious risk of making contact with the head of his opponent. Due to the camera angle the exact point of contact cannot be seen however the MRP submit that the footage is consistent with contact being made direct to the head in a forceful manner with Mr Moi Moi’s arm. Furthermore, the Referee’s report clearly states Mr Moi Moi made “direct contact to the head of Kirk using his forearm/ hand with a large amount of force.”

The opponent appears to have sustained a head injury and is taken from the field. Again, this supports the fact that contact with the head was made in a forceful manner. The attacker does brace for contact however he has not dipped to any great extent and the main factor in contact being made to the head is that Mr Moi Moi has jumped into contact.

Players have a duty of care towards opponents and players must be deterred from making contact with the head of opponents. There were safer ways to make this tackle however Mr Moi Moi chose to make contact in this reckless manner.

Taking all of the above into account, the MRP felt that this was a reckless tackle due to the speed at which Mr Moi Moi advances off the defensive line and due to the fact that he jumps into contact. These two factors mean that there was an obvious risk of making contact with the head of his opponent, therefore the MRP felt Grade C was the appropriate charge.

In response to the players submissions Mr Hardman (RFL Compliance Manager) told the tribunal just need to be reasonably satisfied. He added that the referee waved play-on before contact is made, probably in response to a question raised from a player. He confirmed the MRP were not suggesting that there was a swinging arm involved or that the act was intentional, however, they are of the opinion that this attempt at a tackle was reckless. He feels the players right arm stays round the opposition players head and that the MRP felt the charge was appropriate due to the footage shown and detail in the referee’s report. He added players do sometimes make rash decisions and this incident was simply judged on merit.

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

The player attended the tribunal accompanied by his Head Coach Leon Pryce and Legal Representatives Richard Cramer and Declan Doherty.

Mr Cramer opened the players submissions and explained both he, the player and his coach would be addressing the tribunal. He added that he believed Mr Hardman would have to prove the players guilt and that the player has the right to appear, hence the not guilty plea. He was of the opinion that the case could not be proved on the balance of probability but had to be on the grounds of reasonable doubt. He concluded that the club, player and coach would not be in attendance if they did not feel that that they had a case.

Mr Moi Moi then talked the tribunal through footage of the incident. He explained he is an aggressive player by nature and there was a height difference between himself and his opponent. He then confirmed there was a clash of heads before any contact was made by his arm. He stated he had not swung his arm and that his feet only left the ground after impact. He said it was unfortunate that there had been a clash of heads and that this led to the injury caused to his opponent.

Mr Pryce then too the tribunal through the incident. He stated that the player was well off-side leading up to contact, however, as a coach he is very big on his sides discipline. He said that Mr Moi Moi is a player who plays in this fashion but he did not swing his arm into contact and that it was tucked in in the lead up to the tackle. He felt the referee had no clear view and although the touch judge did there was no report submitted by him. He also felt that the reaction from the Bradford players could have swayed the decision and he felt there was certainly no intent on his players part.

Mr Cramer then highlighted the referees report and expressed that the officials had a very difficult job. He felt that the referee had waved play-on following the clash and only stopped play and acted after the reaction from the opposition and then the subsequent entering of the field by the touch judge. He added that the injury caused was unfortunate, however the footage was in favour of Mr Moi Moi as he looked to warp his arms around his opponent in the tackle and that there was no swing of his arm. He also felt there was no upwards trajectory and that the player lifts his opponent and doesn’t jump into contact.

He added Mr Moi Moi is an experienced player and at such a crucial stage in the game he would have not have purposely put his side under pressure, especially when given what was at stake. He stated there was not enough evidence to be reasonably satisfied and the tribunal had a big decision to make ahead of such a big game for the club this weekend. He added the presence of both the player and his coach show just how seriously the club are taking this and credit should be given for that.

Mr Pryce then concluded that he felt the actual point of contact cannot be seen and there was not enough evidence. He added that the evidence needed to be conclusive.

Mr Cramer finished by saying the tribunal should looks at the actions of the referee and that with two experienced former players on the tribunal he felt it would be properly looked at.

Decision:

Guilty

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal thank both sides for their submissions. They are however satisfied that the player jumps into contact with his left foot leaving the ground first, closely followed by his right just before the moment of impact.

The referee’s report clearly states he felt that there was contact to the head, although the agree it was not intentional. They are however of the opinion that it was reckless.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

Mr Hardman felt that the sending off of the player was not relevant. The MRP were agreed that it was clear contact with the head, however, he felt it right to let the tribunal decide whether an extra match should be added following the unsuccessful appeal.

Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

Mr Cramer told the tribunal he accepts their decision but did feel that 3 matches was enough of a suspension. He felt that an increased ban could affect the players career and that an additional match would be harsh. He added that as the player was sent off that should count for something, especially when it occurred at such a crucial time of an important game.

He confirmed that this was an “all or nothing” challenge as had a not guilty verdict been given the player could play this weekend. He said that an increased suspension could end a playing career of a player who had played for over 20 years.

Reasons for Decision:

The tribunal have considered all the evidence put before them and are agreed that this was indeed a frivolous challenge to the 3-match penalty notice.

They therefore increase the suspension to 4 matches and also fine the player the standard £75.

Suspension:

4 matches