| Player plea |
Guilty – appeal against the grading of the charge |
| Summary of CM's submissions on the Charge / evidence |
Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 11 February 2013, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(a) during the above Match.
The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in approximately the 2nd minute of the Match. You were dismissed from the field of play by the Match Referee following this incident. In the Panel’s opinion you made intentional late contact with your opponent (Fages) using your shoulder after the ball had been passed and made direct contact with his head. The Panel believed that this conduct was against the spirit of the game and that your conduct had the potential to cause serious injury to your opponent.
In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade D offence (Strikes – Strikes with hand, arm or shoulder – Intentional). If found to have committed the offence, again in accordance with the On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the normal suspension range for such offence is from a 3 to a 5 match suspension. In addition the Tribunal has the power to impose such fine as it considers reasonable.
|
| Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence |
Oliver Marns representing Mr Bousquet states that the player and the club feel that this offence is a careless/lower end of reckless offence as opposed to the intentional that the Match Review Panel has pitched the charge. The element of intentional is really apparent to the club and they feel that this has a stigma attached. Unfortunately as well there has been a lot of negative and inaccurate media coverage with regards this incident which the club do not agree with. Mr Marns and Mr Guisset also point out to the Tribunal that the opponent, Mr Fages steps back in to the tackle as any half back would. Mr Bousquet is only 2 metres away however the speed that he is covering means that a collision is almost unavoidable and the incident happens within a fraction of a second. One of the main factors as well, Mr Marns wishes to point the size of the Mr Bousquet against his opponent is considerable with Mr Bousquet standing at 6 foot 5 19 stones against his opponent being 5 foot 8 is a significant difference. Mr Marns states that the injury is very unfortunate suffered by the opponent. Mr Guisset also mentions that if Mr Bousquet wanted to intentionally he would have used his right shoulder as this is his main tackling shoulder. |
| Decision |
Guilty to Intentional tackle |
| Reasons for Decision |
The committee have viewed this incident carefully and are quite satisfied that this was an intentional act of striking. The committee note that there is a size difference between the player and his opponent however all players have a duty of care to their opponents. The player seems to be keeping an eye on his opponent all the away and in this context whilst it is a split second, context is everything. In this context the committee are quite satisfied that the player could have at the very least changed his tackling technique upon impact. |
