Case Detail
Case Number:
ON/858/23
Alex Walmsley #8, St Helens
Competition:
Super League
Match:
St Helens v Huddersfield Giants
Match Date:
2023-06-03
Incident:
High Tackle
Decision:
Charge
Charge Detail:
Law 15.1 (b)
High Tackle – Reckless – tried to tackle but reckless about outcome
Grade B
Sanctions:
£250 fine
Decision On Charge
Player plea:
Not Guilty
Summary of CM's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 5th June 2023, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(b) during the above match.
The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 29 39 Opta footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have made reckless contact with the head or neck of your opponent in making attempting to make a tackle. The Panel believed your actions were unnecessary, had the potential to cause injury and are against the spirit of the game.
In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade B offence – High Tackle – Reckless – tried to tackle but reckless about outcome.
The normal suspension range for such offence is from a fine to 1-Match suspension.
• Match Review Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in the above match.
• The opponent Joe Greenwood takes a carry into contact and after initial contact is made by Mr Walmsley teammate Mr Roby, Mr Walmsley contacts Mr Greenwood.
• Mr Greenwood then goes to ground seemingly injured following the contact and is taken from the field of play and does not return.
• The MRP submit that Mr Greenwood’s head clears the head of Mr Walmsley on the footage.
• Mr Greenwood’s head then bounces back quickly, and his legs can be seen to ‘give’ prior to any further contact with either Mr Walmsley or Mr Roby on the way to ground.
• Given the body position of Mr Walmsley, the MRP submit the only part of Mr Walmsley’s body that Mr Greenwood’s head could hit would be either the shoulder, upper arm or upper chest.
• Mr Walmsley is always high into contact.
• The opponent is at a reasonable position and his height has not significant altered.
• Mr Walmsley the MRP would submit has acted in a reckless manner.
• Grade B due to:
- Tried to tackle but reckless
- Footage does not show point of contact so unable to ascertain the force. Grade B is minimum charge Grade for a Reckless High Tackle.
- Potential for injury to the head. Area of concern for the game.
Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Player in attendance alongside Mike Rush (CEO) & Paul Wellens (Head Coach). Player pleads Not Guilty.
MR explained that the club felt there was no evidence to support the charge that had been brought against AW.
He felt the footage that was used to bring the charge was inconclusive and that it was up to the MRP to meet the appropriate burden of proof and in this instance they had not done so.
He added that the footage showed the players “side on” and that the collision was between two big men of which AW was the larger. It showed there was no proof of any contact to the head of the opponent and that there was no contact to the head of the opponent by AW’s shoulder.
PW added that the apparent “head rock” of the opponent doesn’t mean that there was contact to the head. There are many big tackles which can result in this occurring.
MR added that a teammate of AW’s makes the initial contact with the opponent and after this the footage does not show the point of contact when he meets AW. The club are attending to keep AW’s previously clean disciplinary record.
AW the addressed the Tribunal. He reiterated the above and explained that he had played the game for several years without ever finding himself in trouble with his discipline. If he had been guilty of this charge, he would have shown remorse. The club have a big coming up next and he would not want to jeopardise is chances of missing it.
Decision:
Not Guilty
Reasons for Decision:
The Tribunal thank both sides for their submissions.
They have watched the footage several times and are in agreement that the actual point of contact cannot be seen from that angle.
The Tribunal are aware of the burden of standard of proof that must be met and this instance they feel there it too much doubt. They therefore find the player Not Guilty.