Case Detail
Case Number:
ON/1738/26
Tevita Pangai Jr #35, Hull KR
Competition:
Super League
Match:
Hull KR v Warrington Wolves
Match Date:
2026-08-18
Incident:
Late contact on passer
Decision:
Charge
Charge Detail:
Law 15.1 (i)
Dangerous Contact - A defending player makes contact with an opponent after the ball has been released by an opponent in a vulnerable position which causes flexion to the head, neck or spinal column on an attacking player, which poses an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.
Grade A
Sanctions:
1 Match Suspension & 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 20th August 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 in approx. 01 41 22 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have contacted your opponent after the ball has been released causing flexion to 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 A offence – Dangerous Contact - A defending player makes contact with an opponent after the ball has been released by an opponent in a vulnerable position which causes flexion to the head, neck or spinal column on an attacking player, which poses an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.
The Penalty Points for such an offence is 1 Penalty Points.
• The Match Review Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in the above match where the incident was not subject to any refereeing action on the night.
• The ball has been released by the opponent George Williams so therefore any contact thereafter becomes misconduct.
• The Match Review Panel use the framework for late contacts when considering such incidents.
• The Match Review Panel believed that there was considerable flexion and that this was low force in respect of late contacts.
• It is the view of the Match Review Panel that there was mitigation in respect that the player was engaged, and the attacking player was expecting some form of contact.
• However, in aggravation, the Match Review Panel believed that the player had approached contact at speed and that the nature of the contact was avoidable.
• Taking all the above factors into account and the level of force involved within the contact, the Match Review Panel believed that the player should be charged with a Grade A offence as a result of this contact.
Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Player in attendance alongside Neil Hudgell (Chair), and James Stephenson (Head of Rugby) Player pleads Not Guilty.
NH conceded that the ball had gone and that contact technically constituted misconduct but argued that the framework supported no charge.
He added that contact occurred roughly one tenth of a second after the opponent had released the ball, the player was not penalised and the player could not realistically withdraw from the tackle.
He felt that the contact involved was minimal rather than considerable flexion due to it being shoulder to shoulder. The player remained on his feet and the opponent made no complaint and immediately rejoined the defensive line ready for the next play. He concluded that even if the Tribunal found considerable flexion, the acknowledged mitigating circumstances could still lead to no charge.
Decision:
Guilty
Reasons for Decision:
The Tribunal considered footage from multiple angles, still images submitted by the club, and the fact that some footage was slowed down.
They accepted that there was some mitigation because the Mr Williams skilfully engaged with Mr Pangai and it is acknowledged that Mr Pangai could not avoid all contact. These factors were taken into account in determining the charge.
The Tribunal found that the mitigation was outweighed by Mr Pangai approaching at speed with his head down and making no attempt to wrap. The Chair stated that, had Mr Pangai raised his head and attempted to wrap, that could have significantly mitigated the contact.
The Tribunal accepted the Compliance Managers submission that the conduct would ordinarily have amounted to a Grade B charge but should be reduced to Charge A to reflect the identified mitigating features.
Taking everything into account the challenge was rejected. Mr Pangai therefore must have five additional penalty points added to his charge, which in this instance also means an increase in his suspension to 2-matches & an increased fine. The club will also lose the bond brought to bring this challenge.