Case Number:

ON/1802/24

Lewis Hatton #31, Keighley Cougars

Competition:

League One

Match:

Keighley Cougars v Hunslet

Match Date:

2024-10-06

Incident:

Foul and abusive language towards Match Official

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (g)

Disputes using any foul and abusive or aggressive language and/or body language

Grade D

Fine:

£40

Sanctions:

2 Match Penalty Notice and a £40 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 7th October 2024, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(g) during the above match.

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 50 00 footage time (second half) of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have used foul and abusive language towards the referee. The referee’s report is attached with the letter. In the Panel’s opinion they believed your actions to be misconduct and 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 D offence – Disputes using any foul and abusive or aggressive language and/or body language.

The normal suspension range for such offence is from a 2 to a 3-Match suspension plus a fine.

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

• Mr Hatton was dismissed because of his actions.

• The referee’s dismissal report stated that, “In approximately the 74th minute, after I had sin binned Hatton for telling me I am "so bad" at least twice, he then looked at me and very clearly said to me, "**** off". I then changed the sin bin to red and dismissed Hatton for his actions.”

• Based on the available footage the Match Review Panel have no reason to disbelieve the referees report.
• The Panel believed that Mr Hatton’s actions were unnecessary, against the true spirit of the game and brings the game into disrepute.

• Under 1.2 of the On Field Sentencing Guidelines it states that the disciplinary system must support and protect Match Officials.

• Mr Hatton’s standards have fallen below what is expected of a player and amount to Misconduct.

- Grade D due to:
? Abuse has been personalised towards the referee
? Language is of an aggressive nature
? Brings sport into disrepute
? Breach of RESPECT Policy

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

Player not in attendance but represented by Steve Watkinson (COO). Player pleads Not Guilty.

SW suggested that the Referee may have misheard what was said. LH was shouting to teammates “let’s go short” as they were about to kick-off following conceding a penalty. He asked why the Referee didn’t stop as they walked back to the half-way line as they were in close proximity.

LH was frustrated but the club fell that the Referee has misheard what had been said. LH is of good character but did say “**** off” after the red card was given.

Decision:

Guilty

Reasons for Decision:

The player was dismissed because of his actions. The Referee’s dismissal report states, in summary, that the player has been sin-binned for telling the Referee that he was “so bad” at least twice. At which point the player is alleged to have said “**** off” and the Referee changed the sin-bin decision to a red card thereby dismissing the player for his actions.

The MRP considered that this mater ought to have been dealt with by a penalty notice. The penalty notice has bee challenged by the player as such the matter was referred to the Operational Rules Tribunal for consideration and determination of guilt based on the evidence caused.

During the hearing the panel heard from the Referee who confirmed his evidence as per the dismissal report he prepared at the time. The player was not present at the hearing. A “statement” said to have been prepared by him was read to the tribunal by Steve Watkinson who appeared for the player. The version of events from the player was disputed by the Referee who was adamant he could not have been mistaken.

Of note, the basis from the player accepted that he did use the words “**** off” towards the Referee but that was after the issuing of the red card and not before.

We remind ourselves that the Compliance Manager shall have the burned of establishing that the On-Field misconduct has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Compliance Manager has established the On-Field misconduct has occurred to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal with due regards to the seriousness of the allegation which is being made.

The standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less that proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

As per the correspondence sent to the player, he was made aware that the penalty notice imposed upon his was a two-match penalty notice and a £40 fine. He was further made by the correspondence that in the event that any challenge was unsuccessful the Tribunal shall impose the sanction outlined in the penalty notice and shall increase the suspension by an additional match if it considers that the grounds for the challenge were unreasonable and or frivolous and furthermore, that any deposit shall be forfeited.

The Tribunal felt it has no option to find the matter proved and given the challenge was conducted in the absence of the player, who has chosen to go to training rather than attend the Tribunal, the Tribunal felt that this was a frivolous/unreasonable challenge.

The Tribunal decided that a three-match suspension and £40 fine and the club’s loss on bond would be the disposal.

Suspension:

3 matches