Rugby League

Case Detail

Case Number:


Joe Diskin #9, Leeds


Warm Up Matches


Leeds Rhinos v Bradford Bulls

Match Date:



Head Contact



Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (b)

Head Contact

Grade E





Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Not Guilty

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 1st February 2024, 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 17 40 time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion, you have made contact with the head of your opponent.

In the Panel’s opinion your actions were serious misconduct, had the potential for 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 E offence – Head Contact.

The normal suspension range for such offence is 3 to 5 matches.

• Match Review Panel reviewed an incident in the above match.

• Mr Diskin contacts the head of his opponent with his own head.

• The MRP deemed this to be forceful and dangerous.

• Under the framework this is deemed to be a high level of force where on initial contact it is head on head.

• Therefore, the entry grading the Match Review Panel submit is a Grade E charge.

• In addition, the opponent has had to leave the field of play to be assessed by the medical personnel at the game.

• The mitigating factors are the player is making a definite attempt to change his height in an effort to avoid the ball carrier’s head.

• The aggravating factors are that the trajectory of the tacklers head is always going towards the ball carrier’s head.

• Given the mitigating and aggravating factors present the Match Review Panel see no reason why this matter should be downgraded from a Grade E charge.

• The Match Review Panel submit that the appropriate tariff in this instance is one of a 3 match suspension and the relevant fine at this level.

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

Player in attendance alongside John Bastian (Head of Youth). Player pleads guilty but challenges the grading.

JB talked through the incident. He felt that JD’s approach to contact was good and his approach wasn’t at high speed. Whilst JD’s feet may have been too wide he felt that the late footwork of the ball carrier meant that JD crossed over to the opposite shoulder.

He did not feel this was serious misconduct, which the grading of this charge is aimed at. He added JD is a young player who the club are working with on his technique. He had moved into the hooker position and there was no malice involved and no injury was caused. He agreed with the new rules on Head Contacts but in this incident, he felt that it should be graded lower. JD is a young player with so much to learn and the new framework does not support this.


Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

The Compliance Manager referred the Tribunal to the framework now to be applied showing the sanctioning for Head Contact offences.

In this case, The Tribunal felt – and it was agreed by the player – that he got his tackle wrong. His feet were in the wrong place. It was a clumsy tackle and was lacking in technique. Notwithstanding this, there was a high level of force and there was a head on head at the initial contact.

In those circumstances the Tribunal felt that this was correctly graded as a Grade E offence.

Taking into account the relative youth of the player his guilty plea and lack of previous disciplinary issues the Tribunal were able to keep the suspension towards the lower end of the range.

The sanction was a 3-match suspension and a fine of £75.


3 matches