Case Number:

ON/248/25

Tom Holroyd #19, Leeds

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Leeds Rhinos v Castleford Tigers

Match Date:

2025-03-02

Incident:

Other Contrary Behaviour

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (i)

Other Contrary Behaviour

Grade E

Sanctions:

+4

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Guilty but challenge the grading

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 6th February, 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 21 01 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have intentionally applied pressure to the arm of your opponent on two separate occasions as the ball carrier. In the Panel’s opinion this is serious misconduct, has the potential for serious injury and is 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 – Other Contrary Behaviour.

The normal suspension range for such offence is 4 matches plus.
• MRP were concerned at the manner in which Mr Holroyd makes contact with his opponent.

• Mr Holroyd can be seen to carry the ball into contact with one of those being his opponent Mr Hill.

• Mr Hill’s locks his arm onto the ball and the tackle goes to ground.

• At this point, Mr Hill can be seen to put his hand on the ground and splay his fingers, but Mr Holroyd locks his opponent’s arm in to stop it from coming free.

• Mr Holroyd then keeps the lock on the arm and rolls with his own body applying pressure to the arm on two separate occasions.

• The opponent it would appear is in pain and the actions of Mr Holroyd draw an angry response from Mr Hill’s teammate Mr Westerman.

• The Match Review Panel were of the view that the actions of Mr Holroyd were intentional, unnecessary and had the potential for serious injury.

• The Match Review Panel believe that this matter should be graded as a Grade E offence.

• In this particular case, the MRP felt that the degree of force used, the complete disregard for the opponent’s welfare and the negative and derogatory manner in which Mr Holroyd acted, is 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 Ian Blease (Sporting Director). Player pleads guilty but challenges the grading.

TH explained his actions during the incident, stating that he was trying to secure the ball and create space, and that his actions were careless rather than intentional. He expressed regret for putting Mr Hill in a potentially dangerous position.

TH then talked the panel through the incident whilst the footage was played through frame by frame.

IB felt that the incident should not be classified as a Grade E offence, as it was not intentional and there were no mitigating factors. He felt the charge should be downgraded to reflect the careless nature of TH’s actions. He highlighted mitigating factors such as a lack of injury caused and no action being taking by the match officials.

Decision:

Guilty plea

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal find that the first rolling action shown in the footage was not intentional and was part of the ruck. They accept that it was a result of the rough treatment TH received as part of the tackle. However, the second rolling action was intentional and against the spirit of the game. They determined that it was a deliberate action.

The Chair clarified that whilst the second action was intentional, they do not find that TH intended to cause harm to his opponent.

In conclusion the panel feel that they offence fell below the Grade E level, and that a Grade D charge was more appropriate. They took into account the level of harm and culpability, noting there was no actual harm or injury. The sanction is therefore a two-match suspension.

Suspension:

2 matches