Case Detail
Case Number:
ON/1700/25
Jared Warea Hargreaves #10, Hull KR
Competition:
Super League
Match:
Hull KR v St Helens
Match Date:
2025-10-04
Incident:
Head Contact
Decision:
Charge
Charge Detail:
Law 15.1 (b)
Head Contact
Grade C
Sanctions:
3 Match Penalty Notice
Decision On Charge
Player plea:
Not Guilty
Summary of CM's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 6th October 2025, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(b) during the above match.
The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 08 15 match time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have contacted your opponent in the head and neck. 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 C offence – Head Contact.
The Penalty Points for such an offence is 8 Penalty Points. 5 Penalty Points for a Grade C offence and an additional 3 Penalty Points as the opponent was removed from the field of play and did not return.
• Match Review Panel reviewed an incident in the above match
• The MRP state that the footage clearly shows Mr Warea Hargreaves making contact with his arm to the head and neck of his opponent Mr Bennison
• The incident led to the ball carrier leaving the field of play and not returning. Subsequent information confirms that the opponent failed his Head Injury Assessment
• The Match Review Panel deemed this to be forceful and dangerous and that this was high level of force and danger. For a contact to the head with high level of force and danger, the entry grading is a Grade C charge
• The Match Review Panel believe that there was one mitigating factor that the opponent has lowered his height to avoid the ball carrier’s head
• The aggravating factors are:
- The trajectory of the tackler’s shoulder/arm is always going towards the ball carrier’s head
- Ball carrier fails HIA
• The Match Review Panel believe that taking all factors into account a Grade C is appropriate in this instance.
Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Player in attendance alongside Tim Moloney (Legal Rep) & James Stephenson (Head of Rugby Operations). Player pleads Not Guilty.
1. The context to this disciplinary hearing is unprecedented in the experience of those at Hull KR who have asked instructed Counsel to appear at this hearing.
2. In this situation, a player is injured. There is obvious concern for the player.
3. The referee Liam Moore – it goes without saying, one of the most experienced and admired referees in the game - has not seen foul play, but the video referee – Jack Smith – is asked to look at the footage.
4. He looks at it, not just once, but at least twice. We have produced a transcript of what was said by the video referee and Liam Moore whilst the checking of the video was taking place.
Liam Moore - 3rd, move
Liam Moore - Hold the line, hold now hold
Liam Moore - Wait
Liam Moore - Can he play it, can he pass the ball, can he pass the ball
Liam Moore - Can he pass the ball or ill have to stop the game
Liam Moore - It’s a green card if I stop it
Liam Moore - Do you want me to stop it
St Helens Physio?? – Yes
Liam Moore - Time off, tackle three
Liam Moore - Yeah mate I get you, I’ve asked the question (to Jack Welsby inaudible)
Jack Smith – We’ve had one replay Liam,
Liam Moore - can you watch that again smithy?
Jack Smith – he’s going to ground, he’s going to ground
Jack Smith - Contact on the neck
Jack Smith - Yeah but there’s minimal contact to the head on this Liam
Liam Moore - Yeah, I’m ok with tackle three mate
Jack Smith - Yeah, its tackle three
Liam Moore - Tackle three there please
Liam Moore - Tackle three he’s going down.
Liam Moore - Just wait, just wait, just wait Daz (Daryl Clarke)
4th official?? – Replacements on, I’ll let you know when Bennison is off
Jack Smith – I can’t see any foul play in that mate
Liam Moore - Thank you, just wait and let them leave the field
ENDS
5. Liam Moore explains to Saints players that (referring to John Bennison) “he’s going down”.
6. Jack Smith concludes with “I can’t see any foul play in that mate”.
7. The letter to JWH from Compliance Manager Gavin Wild says:
If presenting the Charge to the Tribunal, I intend to rely on a recording of the Match and reserve the right to submit any other relevant evidence, e.g. Match Officials’ reports or medical evidence.
8. It is us who wish to rely on the Match Officials’ conclusions at the time – we’ll return to medical evidence later.
9. And we say that their assessment should be respected. They are trained and experienced match officials – the standing of Liam Moore and Jack Smith are both beyond question Mr. Moore was close to the action as it was actually happening – we can see from the footage that he was only a very few metres away. He is extremely experienced in judging contact of the nature in question this afternoon and his assessment was that there was no foul play
10. He was close into the action and not just watching it on a screen
11. When John Benison appeared to be injured, he had the footage checked – he said, “I am asking the question”. After watching the footage at least twice, Jack Smith said “I can’t see any foul play in that mate”
12. He therefore confirmed the decision of the referee
Both are officials - trained and experienced dedicated referees - who are ideally suited to judging whether the contact was forceful or dangerous and whether there were any mitigating factors and they made their decision
13. The referee then played on - third tackle confirmed whilst Mr. Benison went off to have treatment.
14. We now have the position whereby the Match Review Panel wish to have the considered decision of the match referee and the video referee over-ruled
15. It is not that the referee and video referee have completely missed an incident
16. They have seen the incident; they have considered it; the video referee watched footage of it at least twice; and they have decided that there was no foul play in respect of what was at worst the difference between a penalty and no penalty – a card was never in issue
17. The officials made a considered decision that no penalty
18. The Match Review Panel now asks you to over-rule the referee and video referee
19. We say it would be a very dangerous step to take and that step should only be taken in the very clearest circumstances
20. Asking you to over-rule the considered judgement of the officials on whether there has been foul play (not the severity of the foul play but whether there had been foul play) - after watching footage in a room away from the ground – is grist to the mill of those who think officials are fair
21. We say that unless there is an indisputable manifest error by the officials, such a process potentially brings the game into disrepute – in effect, not even the governing body trusts the match officials
22. In circumstances like these, we respectfully say the process should be one of review – not rehearing
23. We say the position is a very long way from there having been an indisputable, manifest error in this instance
24. We say that the considered decision of the match officials - both of them together -was right
25. If we look at the Head Contact Sanctioning Framework
(i) P.1 – On Field – if the contact is not forceful/dangerous - minimal as Jack Smith said - penalty
If the contact is not forceful and dangerous and there are mitigating factors – in this case as Liam Moore rightly said – “he’s going down” - no penalty.
(ii) P.2 - the same
(iii) P.4 – Match Review Panel – mitigating factors plus low level of force or danger gives not charge
26. The reality of this incident is that Liam Moore was right
27. He was going down – he went to ground very quickly
28. And Jack Smith was right – there is not a swinging arm to the neck
29. JWH falls forward so that his arm is on the neck and shoulder. His hand is open
30. His arm is in contact with the shoulder and the neck – despite what is said by the Match Review Panel there is no contact with the head
31. Moreover, John Bennison is clearly not rendered inured by the tackle to begin with. It can be seen that he is speaking after the impact and he is struggling to get out of the tackle
32. John Benison appears to be injured and there might be some legitimate concern about that – could be an aggravating factor
33. We observe, sir, that this incident occurred in the 8th minute of the game.
34. As you and the Panel will be aware sir Rule 4.3 of the Onfield Compliance Procedures and Guidelines prohibits us from showing other incidents.
35. Symptoms of concussion can be delayed in onset
36. We say there is every possibility in this case that any ill effects of contact were delayed
37. As I said earlier, the charge letter refers to reserving the right to produce medical evidence.
38. None has been produced.
39. No evidence has been provided from the club or the player. Both would have been simple and straightforward to produce.
40. You’ll be aware sir that paragraph 4.2 of the Onfield Compliance Procedures and Guidelines stipulates that:
The Compliance Manager shall have the burden of establishing that On Field Misconduct has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Compliance Manager has established that On Field Misconduct has occurred to the reasonable satisfaction of the Operational Rules Tribunal, with due regard given to the seriousness of the allegation which is being made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
41. There is not sufficient evidence to come anywhere near satisfying this Tribunal that JWH causes injury to John Bennison
42. It is a failing that - unaddressed – is apt to cause significant prejudice to Jared Warea Hargreaves, especially given the gravity of outcome here where the player misses his final game after a stellar career.
43. And so, we respectfully ask the Tribunal not to overturn the considered decision of the Tribunal.
44. Whilst we say the decision of the match officials was absolutely correct, we say that their decision cannot in any way be said to be indisputably and manifestly wrong and respectfully urge you not to interfere with it
45. Moreover, sir, all you need to decide in this case, is - as per rule 2 - that the Compliance Manager has not established that On Field Misconduct has occurred to the reasonable satisfaction of the Operational Rules Tribunal, with due regard given to the seriousness of the allegation which is being made.
46. We respectfully urge you to make that finding, sir.
Decision:
Not Guilty
Reasons for Decision:
The Chair led a detailed review of the incident involving JWH’s tackle on John Bennison, with input from Match Officials, the Compliance Manager for the Match Review Panel, and arguments from the club, ultimately concluding that the tackle did not constitute forceful or dangerous head contact and did not merit further action.
He explained that the hearing focused on JWH’s involvement in a tackle on John Bennison, which resulted in Bennison appearing concussed and failing a head injury assessment. Both Match Officials attended the hearing, confirmed their original view that the contact was minimal, and repeated their assessment that the incident did not constitute foul play.
The Compliance Manager explained that the Match Review Panel took a different view from the Match Officials, motivated by the fact that Bennison was clearly concussed and failed his head injury assessment, leading them to conclude the contact was forceful and dangerous, warranting a Grade C charge.
The club argued, relying on the Match Officials' views, that the contact was minimal and not forceful or dangerous, emphasizing that both JWH and Bennison were going down during the tackle and that JWH described his actions as a “stacking tackle” with feet on the ground and no launching motion.
The Chair noted that while Bennison failed the head injury assessment, there was also evidence of heavier contact minutes earlier involving Bennison and three other players, making it unclear whether JWH’s tackle directly caused the head injury, especially in the absence of medical evidence.
He concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the Match Officials' view of minimal force and significant mitigation, with no aggravating factors, and that it was not proven to their satisfaction that any offence occurred, so no further action was warranted.