Case Detail
Case Number:
ON/1561/19
Ethan Havard #22, Wigan
Competition:
Academy
Match:
Newcastle v Wigan
Match Date:
2019-08-18
Incident:
Gouge in the 79th minute (Howe)
Decision:
Charge
Charge Detail:
Rule – 15.1(i)
Detail – Other Contrary Behaviour – Gouge
Grade – E
Sanctions:
4-8
Decision On Charge
Player plea:
Not Guilty
Summary of CM's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 29th August, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(i) during the above Match.
The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in approximately the 79th minute of the above Match. In the Panel’s opinion, evidence presented suggests you promoted your fingers in the eye region of your opponent (Howe) and applied pressure. The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary, had the potential to cause your opponent an injury, against the true spirit of the game and constitute Misconduct.
In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade E offence (Behaves in way contrary to the true spirit of the game – gouging) In accordance with the On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the normal suspension range for such offence is 4 - 8 matches.
Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Player accompanied by Head of Youth Mick Cassidy and pleads Not Guilty.
Player indicates there was no previous altercations between himself and the opponent during the game and indicates he was third man in the tackle.
The opponent was on the floor with his face to the floor. The referee indicates he had a clear view and dismissed the player from the field. Neither the player or his representative question the integrity of the official but contest that there was another player in front of him and perhaps his view was restricted.
There is no immediate reaction from the opponent. He does not react and he does not receive any medical treatment on the field but continues to play until the end of the game.
Player accepts that during the momentum of this tackle that his hand may have been on the opponents facial area at some time but denies any action of deliberate gouging. As he is dismissed the player approaches the opponent and receives no reaction that would suggest he had been subject of a gouging by the opponent.
Decision:
Not Guilty
Reasons for Decision:
The Tribunal have carefully viewed the footage on several occasions although it is not that helpful in that it does not show direct contact with the opponent’s eye area.
The Tribunal have also taken into account the Referees Report and the submissions made by the player and his representative. The evidence and immediate reaction of the official who dismisses the player from the field of play have been taken into consideration.
There is no question of the official’s integrity or his verbal input at this hearing. This Tribunal have to be satisfied that the player did deliberately make contact with the opponents’ eyes.
There was no immediate reaction from the opponent on the field of play and no additional medical evidence to support an injury. Taking into account all the evidence presented this Tribunal are not comfortably satisfied that this offence is made out and find the player Not Guilty.