Case Number:

ON/1671/23

Paul Vaughan #10, Warrington

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Warrington Wolves v St Helens

Match Date:

2023-09-15

Incident:

Lifting an injured player

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (i)

Makes unnecessary contact with a Player who is or may be injured.

Grade E

Fine:

£500

Sanctions:

4-6

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Not Guilty

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 18th September 2023, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(i) during the above match.

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 01 47 54 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have made unnecessary contact with a Player who is or may be injured. The Panel believe your actions were unnecessary and are against the true spirit of the game.

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade E offence – Makes unnecessary contact with a Player who is or may be injured.

The normal suspension range for such offence is 4-6 matches plus.

• The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in the above match.

• The RFL stance on such situations is clear and a well-established precedent was set in 2021 and upheld by the ORT on various occasions. Hakim Miloudi of Barrow Raiders and Tendai Gwaze of Halifax Panthers received 8 match suspensions having been charged with Grade F charges for moving an injured player. 2023 saw a specific charge brought in to further eradicate this unnecessary and dangerous action from the game.
• It is not for any player in any circumstances to have physical contact with a player who may be injured. Injured players need treatment from appropriately trained medical staff to ensure that any injury is appropriately managed in the initial stages and is not made worse.
• Whether a player is in fact injured, and if so to what extent, is exclusively a matter for the assessment of the medical staff in conjunction with any necessary match official input. Contact, of whatever type/force, from another player upon a seemingly injured player has the potential for serious medical consequences for that injured player.
• In very limited circumstances a player may render immediate physical assistance to another player who is obviously seriously injured. This is not the case here. Mr Vaughan is in no way attempting to assist the injured player. His actions are in a purely negative manner and for his own personal gain.
• The incident was not part of play. There was no need to touch the opponent in any manner whatsoever and the action had the potential to cause further serious injury. The opponent was slow to regain his feet.
• Clubs have been sent various notes on not to do this and players have attended MRP training sessions with the message being specially raised that this is prohibited.
• This offence carries a possible Grading from E to F. The MRP had no option but to put this at a Grade E. In this case the MRP felt that the nature of the pull/lift, the fact that the opponent was already injured or possibly injured with the potential for further injury, the complete disregard for the opponent’s welfare and the negative and derogatory way Mr Vaughan acted – contrary to the true spirit of the game with such actions having no place on the Rugby League field of play.

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

Player in attendance alongside Karl Fitzpatrick (CEO), Gary Chambers (Acting Head Coach) and Kylie Leuluai (Head of Rugby). Player pleads Not Guilty.

KF explained that the club understood the rule that had been introduced and the reasons for it. However, in this instance they believe the opponent was not injured, and this is confirmed via a statement that he made via e-mail.

KF then talked through the incident. He felt that the opponent was never motionless at any point and he required no medical treatment following it. The opponent was trying to slow the clock down in the final minute of a close game and he was not injured or indeed was potentially injured.

The grading of the charge means that PV could potentially be suspended for 4-matches and this comes at a point in the season where the Play Offs and potential Grand Final are imminent.

GC added that at the time of the incident St Helens were down to 12-men and just six points ahead. The opponent was never prone at any point.

KF concluded that this incident does not warrant a Grade E or F charge. The club believe this is at worst an infringement at the ruck and a penalty would have been sufficient. The opponent is getting up to play the ball.

Decision:

Guilty

Reasons for Decision:

The defence in this case argue that Mr Matautia was not injured and that there is nothing in what occurred in the tackle to suggest that he may have been. It is argued that when you consider the footage, he does not stop at any point and is in fact getting to his feet, albeit slowly. He does not receive any medical treatment and plays an enthusiastic role in the celebrations of the try that followed.

It is suggested that it was clear to Mr Vaughan that this was gamesmanship on the part of Mr Matautia, and that what's more, he has accepted such in his e-mail to the Tribunal.

To that end, it is submitted that not only was he not injured, but it is also not possible to say that he may have been injured and therefore, the allegation of the charge of making unnecessary contact with a player who is or may be injured, is not made out.

The Match Review Panel submits that it's not for any player to make such an assessment of injury, or for that matter, potential injury. These are matters for those who are qualified to make those assessments, namely the Medical Team, whatever the actual position as it transpires is they submit irrelevant.

It is very easy, the Tribunal think, to assess offences such as this with the benefit of hindsight. It does appear from what he subsequently did, that Mr Matautia was not in fact injured from the contact.

This is of course, further confirmed by his e-mail, in which he clearly states that he was playing for time and was uninjured, but the whole crux of this offence is about the situation at the time of the tackle. More importantly, the crux of the offence is about players not making those decisions or those assessments.

Mr Matautia was very slowly getting to his feet. To that end, he was not behaving in a way in which an unqualified person could instantly rule out an injury of any sort. Mr Vaughan rightly assessed, as it turned out, that Mr Matautia was simply wasting time. But it was not his assessment to make at the time, and no amount of hindsight alters that position.

So, whilst the Tribunal consider that this was very much at the bottom of the scale for an offence of this sort, they are reasonably satisfied that it has been proved.

The whole point of this offence is that players in the heat of battle are not to make assessments as to who is injured or not.

Players must leave opponents to get to their feet or receive treatment. If they are time wasting the Referee should intervene. Players cannot take it into their own hands.

Each player has a duty of care to their opponent and to ensure that their actions do not in any way endanger that opponent.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Aggravating Factors:

17/04/23 – Dangerous Contact (Grade B – 1 match)
29/05/22 – Contrary Conduct (EGP - $1,000 fine)

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal thank both sides for their submissions.

Given the findings the Tribunal feel they have no choice, however, they do feel that any suspension should be at the bottom of the Grade E scale. They therefore suspend the player for 4-matches. He is also fined £500.

Suspension:

4 matches