Case Detail
Case Number:
ON/176/20
Carl Forster #10, Barrow
Competition:
Challenge Cup
Match:
Barrow v London Skolars
Match Date:
2020-02-16
Incident:
Other Contrary Behaviour in the 28th minute (Greenhalgh)
Decision:
Charge
Charge Detail:
Rule – 15.1(i)
Detail – Other Contrary Behaviour
Grade – D
Sanctions:
3-5
Decision On Charge
Player plea:
Not Guilty
Summary of CM's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 27th February, 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 28th minute of the above Match. 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 D offence (Behaves in way contrary to the true spirit of the game – Other Contrary Behaviour) In accordance with the On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the normal suspension range for such offence is 3 - 5 matches.
Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
The player was in attendance accompanied by Steve Neale (Chairman) and Andy Gaffney (Director of Rugby). The player pleaded Not Guilty.
The submissions made on behalf of the player are consistent in that he is of a very good character. The charge is something that he categorically denies.
The club also feel that if anything had of happened the opponent would have reported the incident immediately. This was not the case.
The player was surprised when he received the charge letter as he was certain nothing untoward had happened. The club are very concerned about the charge as it is of a very serious nature.
Decision:
Not Guilty
Reasons for Decision:
The opponent made no immediate complaint after the tackle had been completed and the Tribunal are satisfied that the desire to make a complaint came from non-playing staff.
The Tribunal have read through the case file, listened to the submissions from both sides and spoken to the opponent involved. They also gave the opportunity for both sides to question the opponent about this incident. They have also carefully watched footage of the incident several times.
The Tribunal are comfortably satisfied that the discomfort felt by the opponent was consistent with the pulling up of the shorts. They are of the opinion that this was a case of poor technique by the player and are aware that there was no immediate complaint by the opponent following the tackle.
They also note that the desire to make a formal complaint came from off-field staff and not by the opponent himself.
The Tribunal therefore feel that the player has no case to answer, although they suggest he should consider his technique in the future.