Case Number:

ON 978/21

Paul Brearley #31, Rochdale

Competition:

League 1

Match:

London Skolars v Rochdale

Match Date:

2021-08-07

Incident:

In 39th minute, 31 Hornets in effecting the tackle places his arms around the armpits of the ball carrier and then applies pressure to the back of the head of the ball carrier with force. 31 Hornets was immediately penalised for a crusher tackle. On review, the incident is placed on report for Match Review Panel consideration.

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Dangerous Contact - 15.1 (i) – Defending player in or after effecting a tackle, forcefully and unnecessarily grasps (or jerks, or pins or twists) the head or neck of the tackled player

Fine:

£75

Sanctions:

3-5

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Guilty, but challenging grading

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 12th August 2021, 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 39th minute of the above Match. The incident was placed on report. In the Panel’s opinion you applied unnecessary pressure to the head/neck area of your opponent. The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary and had the potential to cause your opponent serious injury.

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade D offence – “Dangerous Contact – Defending player in or after effecting a tackle, uses any part of their 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 3 to 5 matches.

In response to the comparison clip ((Walshaw – Featherstone v Batley – Grade C) the CM explained the MRP felt this was graded lower due to the players grip not been as strong, no lifting motion used and the players feet were on the floor.

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

Player represented by Steve Kerr (CEO) and Andy Mazey (Chairman). Club plead guilty but challenge the grading.

PB addressed the Tribunal and explained there was no malice involved and he was not trying to hurt the opponent. He was trying to lift and drop the opponent using a technique that he has been coached. He explained he was trying to twist on to his side so as to take the opponent to ground and win the tackle. He was initially confused when a penalty was given and there was certainly no intent. He used the lifting motion in an attempt to create some space and on completion of the tackle checked on his opponent.

SK explained the player is 6ft 7 tall. Been that size can sometimes make it awkward to get to the floor. In a four year professional career the player has never been sin-binned or sent off and has a clean previous disciplinary record. The incident was accidental and there was no intent. He does not believe that there was consistent pressure applied to the opponent and only perhaps some right at the end. He was unsure on an alternative way to complete the tackle. The club do not agree that this is a Grade D charge.

AM added that the player had to use the lifting motion due to the player’s size.

The club introduced a comparison clip (Walshaw – Featherstone v Batley – Grade C). They felt this was an identical incident but in this instance left the opponent in considerable distress which required medical treatment.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

• Incident occurs in approximately the 39th minute of the match
• The opponent, London Skolars, 17, Christian Gale, can be seen to break a tackle from the Rochdale number 2
• Mr Gale is then contacted by Mr Brearley with a teammate of Mr Brearley, the Rochdale number 18, grabbing hold of Mr Gale’s lower legs shortly after that contact
• The Rochdale number 2 now moves away
• Mr Brearley has a firm grip of Mr Gale, with considerable pressure being applied to the back of Mr Gale’s head/neck region as the Rochdale number 18 still has a grasp of Mr Gale’s legs
• As the tackle goes down, Mr Brearley keeps his opponent up and also actually visibly lifts Mr Gale upwards rather than releasing the tackle
• Mr Brearley still has a strong and firm grip with pressure still being applied to Mr Gale’s head/neck region
• This grip traps Mr Gale’ s head under Mr Brearley and keeps Mr Gale at a disadvantage in the tackle
• Mr Brearley then, lifts his feet and throws his feet backwards, noticeably dropping heavily onto his knees whilst still holding Mr Gale and pushing his weight forwards towards Mr Gale’s head/neck region
• Mr Gale’s head remains trapped and as Mr Brearley goes to ground – considerable force is applied to the head, neck, spinal column of Mr Gale
• Mr Gale is visibly distressed and unhappy at the tackle
• Player has failed in his duty of care owed to his opponent
• Sole contributor to pressure being applied
• Actions are clearly considered. Player has alternative ways in which to complete the tackle
• Higher end of Grade D due to:
- Highly reckless contact and unnecessary
- Pressure is applied for a significant period of time
- Visible lifting and dropping action
- Involves an unacceptable risk of injury to the player
- No duty of care shown towards opponent

Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

The club feel the suspension should be at the lower end of the grading. The player has a clean previous record and has never been sent from the field of play in his career.

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal accept that there was never any intention to injure his opponent.

They also can accept that initially he may have been lifting in order to twist his opponent to create space for his head to move to the side. The problem the Tribunal have is that the player did not create that space, in fact his head remained tight to his chest, his grip did not lessen and instead he pushed his legs away bringing his body weight down on the spinal column of his opponent.

Being committed to this way of tackling does not in any way excuse it and we are of the view that there were other actions that he could have taken rather than bring his entire body weight down onto the back of his opponent’s neck.

This was in our view highly reckless. The Tribunal think that a player owes his opponent a duty of care and by that to play the game safely and should a player be in a dangerous position a duty to reduce or eliminate that danger.

That said the Tribunal are impressed by the player and in particular his record.

Whilst comfortably satisfied Grade D is correct, we feel a suspension at the bottom of that range is appropriate. Therefore, the player will be suspended for 3 matches.

Suspension:

3 matches