Case Number:

ON/0860/26

Lachie Miller #1, Leeds

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Wigan Warriors v Leeds Rhinos

Match Date:

2026-05-15

Incident:

Unnecessary contact with an injured player

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (i)

Makes unnecessary contact with a player who is injured or may be injured

Grade E

Fine:

£1000

Sanctions:

3 Match Suspension

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Not Guilty

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

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 18th May 2026, 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 33 53 of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have made unnecessary contact with a player who is or may be injured. 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 E offence – Makes unnecessary contact with a Player who is or may be injured.

The Penalty Points for such an offence is 18 Penalty Points.

• The Match Review Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in the above match which was not subject to any refereeing action.
• After the tackle was complete, the opponent Mr Partington can be seen to not regain his feet in a standing position and is crouched over by the ruck.
• Mr Miller can be seen running laterally towards the ruck and the Match Review Panel submit that the footage clearly shows the player looking at his opponent Mr Partington for a period of time.
• Mr Miller aggressively and forcefully pushes his opponent Mr Partington to the ground so that he lands on his back after being in a crouched position.
• It is not for any player in any circumstances to have physical contact with a player who may be injured. Injured players need treatment from appropriately trained medical staff to ensure that any injury is appropriately managed in the initial stages and is not made worse.
• The Match Review Panel submit that it is entirely reasonable based on the footage that Mr Partington may be injured given how he is presenting and Mr Miller must be aware of this.
• Whether a player is in fact injured, and if so to what extent, is exclusively a matter for the assessment of the medical staff in conjunction with any necessary match official input. Contact, of whatever type/force, from another player upon a seemingly injured player has the potential for serious medical consequences for that injured player.
• In very limited circumstances a player may render immediate physical assistance to another player who is obviously seriously injured. This is not the case here. Mr Miller is in no way attempting to assist the injured player. His actions are in a purely negative manner and for his own personal gain.
• Clubs have been sent various notes on not to do this, and players have attended MRP training sessions in the past, with the message being specially raised that this is prohibited.

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

Player in attendance alongside Ian Blease (Sporting Director). Player pleads Not Guilty.

LM explained that he believed the opponent was simply tired and in an offside position. His actions were instinctive and aimed at either gaining a quick play or a penalty and there was no intention to target an injured player.

IB supported LM’s account, emphasising the fast pace of the game, the expectation for players to clear the ruck and the absence of injury to the opponent. He suggested the incident was a tactical play rather than misconduct and questioned the severity of the proposed sanction.

IB argued that the current rules require defending players to clear the ruck and the opponent did not do so, suggesting that LM’s actions were consistent with the game expectations and not misconduct. He questioned the appropriateness of a 3-match ban for LM, describing it as excessive and noting that the club had considered alternative charges but found none were applicable under the current rules.

He highlighted the increasing use of tactical positioning by defending players to influence Referee decision, suggesting that such tactics are common due to the fast pace of the modern game.

In closing both LM & IB reiterated their disagreement with the charge and maintained that the incident was a misjudgement rather than foul play.

Decision:

Guilty

Reasons for Decision:

The Panel reminded themselves that the Compliance Manager shall have the burden of establishing that the on-field misconduct has occurred. The standard of proof in all cases is greater than a balance of probability but less that proof beyond reasonable doubt

It is submitted on behalf of the player that there was no malice or bad intent. The player felt that his opponent was no more than tired at the side of the ruck and that the player could possibly have earned a penalty for his opponent being offside.

It is right that malice or bad intention is not required in this case. The Panel find that there was no malice but there was a forceful push in circumstances where the opponent may have been injured.

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

This is a Grade E charge with the penalty points for offence being 18.

As spelt out in the charge letter in the event that the challenge is unsuccessful then the Tribunal shall impose an additional five penalty points to the players record, therefore increasing it to 23.

Therefore, the players 3-match remains and he will also be fined £1000. The clubs deposit to bring the challenge will also be forfeited.

Suspension:

3 matches