Case Number:

ON/1328/25

Charlotte Melvin #6, Lancashire

Competition:

Warm Up Matches

Match:

Lancashire v Yorkshire

Match Date:

2025-08-02

Incident:

Dangerous Contact

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (i)

Dangerous Contact – Defending player, in or after effecting a tackle, uses any part of their body forcefully to bend or apply unnecessary pressure to the head and/or neck and/or spinal column of the tackled player so as to keep the tackled player at a disadvantage in or after the tackle.

Grade B

Sanctions:

3 Penalty Points & 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 August 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 approx. 38 39 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you applied pressure to the neck and back of your opponent. The Panel believed your actions were misconduct and against the spirit of the game.

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel considers that such offence is a Grade B offence – Dangerous Contact – Defending player, in or after effecting a tackle, uses any part of their body forcefully to bend or apply unnecessary pressure to the head and/or neck and/or spinal column of the tackled player so as to keep the tackled player at a disadvantage in or after the tackle.

The starting suspension range for such an offence is 3 Penalty Points.

• The Panel reviewed an incident that had been placed On Report by the match referee.

• The opponent takes the ball into contact and is contacted initially by Miss Melvin’s teammate.

• The opponent spins and Miss Melvin contacts the opponent in the back and initiates an underarm grip of both her opponent’s arm and stays tight to her opponent.

• The tackle then ends up going down and pressure is applied prior to the actions of Miss Melvin’s teammate coming in and pushing her the Match Review Panel submit.

• Miss Melvin at no point looks to loosen her grip on her opponent even when she knows that the tackle is going down.

• The Match Review Panel believe that Miss Melvin has acted in a reckless manner by not creating space for her opponent’s head, neck and spinal column to be compromised.

• It is incumbent on Miss Melvin to ensure that she does not apply pressure and cannot complete a tackle in an unsafe manner which the Match Review Panel submit has occurred in this instance.

• Given the actions of Miss Melvin’s teammate at the end, the Match Review Panel cannot go above a Grade B charge in this instance however are entirely comfortable that pressure has been applied initially and even if pressure was not applied at this stage, the Match Review Panel state that Miss Melvin is entirely responsible for the outcome of the tackle given the tight grip she has her opponent which fails to create space for the head, neck and spinal column.

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

Player in attendance alongside Kieron Purtill (Head Coach) and Neil Jukes (CEO). Player pleads Not Guilty.

NJ explained that the club felt CM’s actions were not forceful and that the tackle was standard practice. He emphasised the CM was trying to keep the opponent up and that the tackle was not complete until the opponents bottom hit the ground.

NJ and KP explained the standard practice of “jacking up” in tackles, where defenders hold opponents up to slow the play. They argued that CM was in control and that the pressure on the opponent was not forceful.

NJ then talked the panel through some still images from the footage, arguing that CM was in control and that the tackle was legitimate. They pointed out that CM’s actions were standard practice and the pressure on the opponent was not forceful.

They noted that the opponent did not react as if they were injured or believed the tackle was forceful. They argued that CM was in control until pushed by a teammate which caused her to lose her footing.

NJ reiterated that CM was following standard practice and that the tackle was not complete until the opponents bottom hits the ground. He argued that the issue arose from the force applied by other players, not the actions of CM.

Decision:

Guilty

Reasons for Decision:

We accept that Miss Melvin initially sought to keep her opponent upright and chose to grip her in a way, that is not criticised.

Once it is apparent that there is no way of achieving her aim of keeping her opponent on her feet then she should have released any grip and sought to make room for her opponent to move her head and neck. Holding her in that grip as she was going to the floor in our view brought unnecessary pressure to her head/neck.

Maintaining the grip as you did in those circumstances creates an obvious risk of injury to an opponent. – we do not accept that it was simply the fault of her teammates, the pressure applied by both of them was in our view not significant.

Miss Melvin was going to ground before that in any event thus increasing pressure on her opponent’s head/neck.

Whilst we viewed the stills with care, we are not satisfied that they are the most helpful way of viewing this incident.

Whilst this was not a case where force was deliberately applied to the head/neck at the outset, having been placed in the position that she was where force was being applied she ought to have made some efforts to release that pressure. The only time it was released was when she completely lost her footing at the end, but the pressure had been applied before that as we have indicated.

The nature of the charge is to ensure that unnecessary pressure is not brought to bear upon the head/neck/spinal column of an opponent when effecting a tackle. It is not in our view limited to an intentional application of force to those areas. Intention is a factor which would in our view be reflected in the Grading of such an offence.

Players can find themselves in difficult and potentially dangerous situations in effecting a tackle which are not intended, but the rule is there to ensure that those who do recognise their responsibility to relieve that pressure. Again, this would be reflected in the grading.

Unnecessary is perhaps the most useful term in this instance. The absence of any meaningful attempt to release the pressure on her opponent’s neck in our view renders the pressure unnecessary.

The MRP have factored in some contribution from her teammate in the grade that they have chosen. Accordingly, we are content with the grading.

As a result of losing the challenge an additional 5 penalty points will be added to the original award of 3.

This therefore leads to 8 penalty points which results in a 1-match suspension. the club will also lose their bond.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Suspension:

1 match