Case Detail
Case Number:
ON/976/25
Sauaso Sue #8, Hull KR
Competition:
Challenge Cup
Match:
Warrington Wolves v Hull KR
Match Date:
2025-06-07
Incident:
Spitting
Decision:
Charge
Charge Detail:
Law 15.1 (i)
Spitting
Grade E
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 9th June, 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 approx. 01 19 10 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have spat at your opponent. The Panel believes 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 – Spitting
The starting suspension range for such an offence is 36 points plus (6 matches plus).
• The Match Review Panel reviewed an incident whereby Mr Sue is alleged to have spat at an opponent.
• The incident was placed on report.
• The reports stated the following:
“In the 57th minute of the match Sue had lost the ball on the floor, and I ruled a knock on. Sue then wished to challenge the decision claiming this was not the case and Hull KR proceeded to invoke their captain’s challenge. During this process, Josh Thewlis accused Sue of spitting. At the conclusion of the captain’s challenge process, I asked Thewlis if he wished to make a formal allegation. Thewlis stated he wished to do so, and I placed the incident on report.”
• A definition of spitting is to eject saliva forcibly from one's mouth, sometimes as a gesture of contempt or anger.
• The opponent Mr Thewlis is visibly in front of Mr Sue who can see and is looking at him at all times and is in close proximity.
• Mr Sue is then seen to spit in the direction of the opponent. The footage does not seemingly pick up where the ‘spit’ contacts however the Match Review Panel state it is has clearly left Mr Sue’s mouth and that it has contacted the opponent Mr Thewlis as the audio states, “he’s just spat at me, he’s spitting”. Mr Thewlis can then be seen later on to approach the touch judge, and you seemingly hear the words, “he has spat at my chest”. Mr Sneyd, the Warrington captain after the Captains Challenge decision confirms with the referee that they wish to make a formal allegation.
• Mr Thewlis immediately reacts and seeks out the referee following the incident. The Match Review Panel would argue that Mr Thewlis teammate Mr Sneyd has also witnessed the incident based on his gesticulations and he also turns to speak to the referee.
• Mr Sue, the Match Review Panel do not believe significantly drops his head downwards to spit directly to the floor below where he is standing to avoid contacting his opponent.
• There is no response the Match Review Panel note from Mr Sue to explain to Mr Thewlis who is clearly agitated following the matter.
• The Match Review Panel’s position is that it is entirely foreseeable therefore that if Mr Sue were to spit in the direction he has, given the position of his own head and the close proximity of his opponent, that he would make contact with his opponent.
• The Match Review Panel are entirely satisfied given the evidence available too them that Mr Sue has intentionally spat at his opponent and is guilty of spitting.
• Players have the legitimate right to enter a field of play and not be subject to acts of such nature. The world has been through a recent global pandemic and the RFL Medical Standards discuss prevention of spreading disease such as not sharing drink containers to avoid contamination. Spitting the Match Review Panel goes against the very essence of what the sport is trying to achieve in this area hence why spitting is such a serious charge
• Such an offence is graded at a Grade E. The Match Review Panel note the complete disregard for the opponent’s welfare and the negative and derogatory manner in which Mr Sue has 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 Tim Moloney KC. Player pleads Not Guilty.
The club note that neither the Referee or Touch Judges witnessed the incident. They suggest that the footage provides every reason to doubt that the player deliberately spat at the opponent and, is strongly supportive of a conclusion that any spit landing on the opponent was through accident.
The character references supplied demonstrate that this type of offence is not in keeping with the player’s character. He has a relatively good disciplinary record over many years and there is no hint in his previous conduct of the field of the type of behaviour alleged.
The club respectfully ask the panel to accept the available evidence falls short of proving to the required standard the player deliberately spat on his opponent.
Decision:
Not Guilty
Reasons for Decision:
The panel have considered very carefully the submissions made by both sides.
They are absolutely certain there was deliberate spitting and of course the player admits that. On a Rugby field that of course does occur and there is no criticism of him for that.
What the panel have to do is decide whether he deliberately spat at his opponent. We were satisfied that some of his spit did make contact with his opponent, however, we have reached the conclusion that the player was careless and clumsy and that he was no thinking about where his spit would land. Therefore, in our judgement it falls just short of the criteria set out in the regulations.
The panel are not satisfied that whilst this was deliberate spitting, that it was deliberate spitting at an opponent.