Case Number:

ON/008/25

Jeylan Hodgson #9, Goole

Competition:

Warm Up Matches

Match:

Featherstone Rovers v Goole Vikings

Match Date:

2025-01-14

Incident:

Biting

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (i)

Biting

Grade E

Fine:

£75

Sanctions:

4+

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Not Guilty

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 27th January 2025, 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 07 54 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have bitten your opponent. The Panel believe your actions were serious 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 E offence – Biting

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

• The Panel reviewed an incident whereby Mr Hodgson was placed on report by the match referee.

• Mr Hodgson takes a carry into contact and is tackled by his opponent Mr Wynne.

• In the tackle Mr Wynne can be seen get his arm in tight around the head area of Mr Hodgson.

• Mr Wynne then proceeds to strike Mr Hodgson twice and immediately goes to show his hand to the referee.

• The referee’s report states the following;

“In approximately the 66th minute of the game, Connor Wynne completed a tackle on Jeylan Hodgson. During this tackle the players both appeared to become aggressive with each other. I saw Connor Wynne punch Jeylan Hodgson at least twice to the head area. Connor immediately told me he had been bitten and wanted to report the incident. He showed me his finger with was cut on the top end of his finger both on top and underneath (which would correlate with a bite in my opinion). However, I want to make it clear I did not see the bite and neither did the nearside touch judge. Subsequently, I dismissed Connor Wynne for his actions of punching, and I placed the accusation of biting on report. Restarted the game with a penalty to Goole for the punching offence.”

• The Match Review Panel cannot see in the footage provided the biting action taking place.

• However, the Match Review Panel were satisfied that given the footage shows the instant reaction of the opponent Mr Wynne and the report of the match referee that the offence of biting had occurred.

• Post the Match Review Panel meeting, the Featherstone club have provided photographs of the injury sustained by Mr Wynne together with the doctor who was treating the injury notes in relation to the matter.

• This offence starts at Grade E. This is a serious case of misconduct and Mr Hodgson has sought to seek an advantage by showing a complete disregard for the opponent’s welfare and the negative and derogatory manner in he has 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 James Clark. Player pleads not guilty.

JC explained that the video evidence is inconclusive and does not show a biting action. The Referee did not see a bite, nor did either Touch Judge.

The footage fails to establish an act of biting and given the high threshold required to establish misconduct the case should not proceed in the absence of direct evidence.

The immediate reaction of the opponent is not to seek the Referee’s attention but to instead land multiple punches to JH. The MRPs reliance on the opponent’s reaction as corroborative evidence is flawed, as his behaviours could also be seen as consistent with a player seeking to deflect blame for his own violent conduct.

The Referees Report also lacks certainty. He did not witness a bite and acknowledges that his conclusion is based on assumption, whilst the Doctors Report merely describes the injury and does not confirm its cause. The photos confirm that the opponent suffered an injury but does not establish that this injury was caused by a bite or indeed the bite was caused by JH.

JH wears a gumshield which makes it extremely difficult, but not impossible, to create the injuries claimed.

JH has an unblemished disciplinary record and the media coverage of the charge has already damaged his reputation. The Tribunal must consider the significant impact on a young players career.

Decision:

Guilty

Reasons for Decision:

The footage shows that when the tackle was made there did not appear to be any issue between the players save for the arm or hand of Connor Wynne which was high around the face of Mr Hodgson. Whilst you cannot see any bite from the footage, Mr Wynne is adamant that he felt immense pain to the finger which he felt was from a bite given the opposing forces to the top and bottom of his finger, which was in proximity of Mr Hodgson’s mouth.

Mr Wynne’s reaction was immediate in that he punched Mr Hodgson; he then came away from the incident shaking his finger and immediately complaining of having been bitten. He said he felt pain at the time on both the top and bottom of the finger and it is in our view in a position to say it is a bite. He then showed an injury which the Referee felt was consistent with the account he had given.

It is suggested that Mr Wynne may have fabricated this incident in order to justify his conduct in punching Mr Hodgson. We reject that suggestion. We find that Connor was a credible and honest witness.

There is no alternative explanation for this pain felt by Mr Wynne. Mr Hodgson was the only person who could have inflicted it. He said nothing he did could have caused it accidentally.

The appearance of the injury, the immediacy of the complaint and the presence of a consistent injury all supports the allegation as does the fact that it is on both sides of the finger.

Therefore, in all the circumstances we are comfortably satisfied that Mr Hodgson bit Mr Wynne as alleged.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal note that the player is just 19 years and has an unblemished record.

They therefore take the view that that a six-match suspension is the appropriate sanction. The player will also be fined £75.

Suspension:

6 matches