Case Number:

ON/1158/22

Liligilfo Sao #8, Hull FC

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Hull FC v Leeds Rhinos

Match Date:

2022-07-02

Incident:

Kicking Out

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (i)

Other Contrary Behaviour

Grade B

Fine:

£500

Sanctions:

2 Match Penalty Notice

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Not Guilty

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

Mr Sao takes the ball into contact and is tackled by 3 Leeds players one of them being Mr Austin. As the tackle is taken to ground, Mr Austin has a hold of Mr Sao’s leg which he keeps a hold of. Mr Sao is tackled up top by the 2 other Leeds players and is on his back. Mr Sao then throws his right leg over which misses Mr Austin and then brings it back towards himself. At the same point Mr Austin releases the leg of Mr Sao pushes his boot towards Mr Austin and makes forceful contact with the body of his opponent.

The MRP felt this satisfied the Definition of Reckless in section 8.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines whereby a person acts recklessly with respect to a circumstance or as to a possible result of an act, if the person is, or ought to be, aware of an obvious risk that the circumstances exist, or that the result will follow, but nonetheless acts where a reasonable person would not do so.

Mr Sao knows that Mr Austin is in the vicinity as he can feel the opponent on his leg. Therefore, to pull your feet back and thrust them in the manner that he did and make contact with an opponent fits the definition of reckless as they are aware of the risk, but he has proceeded to act in the manner he has.

To summarise the reasons for a Grade B Other Contrary Behaviour – Use of Feet, the MRP submit there was:

- Contact is made with the opponent.
- Action is reckless as player knows opponent is in the area.
- No need to use your feet in that manner in regaining your feet given the obvious dangers present in acting in that way.
- Potential for injury.

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

James Clark spoke initially and advised that the player was unaware until he received the details of the charge that there had been an incident, it had not been picked up by the Club's own analysts.. Mr Clark claimed that the incident was not 'obvious' and the player's actions were' reasonable' and was unsighted so could not see that their was a defender holding his leg and if there was a charge to answer it should be 'careless' at worst.

Decision:

Guilty

Reasons for Decision:

The tribunal reviewed the footage a number of occasions. It is clear that the player Austin was the first into the contact tackling Mr Sao. As the tackle progressed Austin had hold of the legs of the player. The tribunal determined that when the player was ‘windmilling’ his legs this can only have been in attempts to connect with Austin in order that Austin would release his grip on the player’s leg; this would then allow the player to use a technique to get to his feet as soon as possible. In those circumstances the tribunal felt that the original decision of the match review panel stands. This was reckless behaviour as defined.

Upon receiving confirmation by the RFL that this was not a frivolous appeal, the tribunal did not impose any further penalty.

The original decision of the match review panel stands.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Suspension:

2 matches