Here are the RFL's verdicts
Wednesday 19 September 2007
Appeal by Steve Trindall of Whitehaven against the severity of sentence (2 matches and ?100 fine) imposed by the Disciplinary Committee on Tuesday 18th September 2007 for striking in the Whitehaven v Leigh Centurions match played on the 13th September 2007
In attendance ? Dave Rotheram, Head Coach
Adjudication:
The Committee have anxiously considered this matter and noted that player Trindall pleaded guilty to an offence of striking. It has been described as being a more clumsy action but nevertheless the opponent was struck with the forearm in the face. The Committee were of the opinion that any such action of contact with the head of an opponent has the potential for serious injury. Thankfully, this was not the case. The Committee gave player Trindall credit for his previous good disciplinary record but this type of misconduct could not be overlooked. The Committee felt that a two match suspension and a ?100 fine was the appropriate penalty and as such, dismissed the appeal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal by Shaun Lunt of Workington Town against the finding of guilt and severity of sentence (4 matches and ?75 fine) imposed by the Disciplinary Committee on Tuesday 18th September 2007 for biting in the Workington Town v York City Knights match played on the 16th September 2007
By telephone ? Les Ashe, Coach and Mark Friar, Director of Football
Adjudication:
The Committee have considered this matter very carefully and viewed the DVD several times. It is apparent and can be seen clearly that after the tackle the touch judge immediately enters the field of play to report the incident. The player can also be seen clearly to pull his arm away from the tackle and the opponent?s head area and then show it to the officials. The Committee have taken into account the officials reports on the incident as to what the player said and what was seen. The Committee noted that the player refuted the conversation with the referee and took note of the letter from the opponent. Taking into consideration all these circumstances, the Committee were satisfied that player Lunt did bite his opponent. As rightly pointed out, this is a serious matter of misconduct which attracts a serious penalty. The Committee felt the finding of guilt and the penalty of four matches and fine of ?75 were appropriate and the appeal was dismissed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday 18 September 2007
Player: Steve Trindall (Whitehaven)
Opponents: Leigh Centurions
Referee: I Smith
Adjudication: The Committee studied the DVD carefully and took into account the players admission of guilt and credit was given for this. The Committee also took into account the players? good disciplinary record since 2003 and again credit was given for this. However, striking is a serious matter of misconduct. This was a dangerous strike to the head of an opponent. Fortunately, it did not result in any serious injury. Taking into account all the circumstances, the Committee felt that the appropriate penalty was one of a two match suspension and a fine of ?100.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player: Shaun Lunt (Workington Town)
Opponents: York City Knights
Referee: J Leahy
Adjudication: The Committee took on board the serious nature of an allegation of biting and are careful about the approach to such an allegation of misconduct. Both the officials reports of the incident have been taken into account. The Committee noted the conversation recorded by the referee and the record of a bite mark by the touch judge. The Committee have watched the DVD carefully on several occasions and noted that the touch judge entered the field of play when he saw the incident. It can be seen clearly that the opponent pulls his forearm away from player Lunt and then when play is stopped, points to his forearm when the touch judge enters the field. The Committee have taken into account a letter and its contents from the opposing player but feel the contents of the letter are contrary to the weight of the other evidence available. The Committee felt that this letter may have been written in a sense of false loyalty. The Committee were satisfied that an offence of biting was made out. Biting is a serious matter which cannot be tolerated and attracts a severe penalty. The Committee took into account the players previous good disciplinary record and as such, are able to reduce the penalty to one of a four match suspension and a ?75 fine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player: Taani Lavulavu (Workington Town)
Opponents: York City Knights
Referee: J Leahy
Adjudication: The Committee viewed the DVD and took into account the officials report that the player was dismissed for persistent high tackling throughout the game. The Committee were satisfied that misconduct was made out in this instance when the arm came into contact with the opponents head but were satisfied there was no intent or malice involved. There was no injury and this tackle was described as being at the very lower end of a careless high tackle. The Committee felt that the appropriate verdict was sending off sufficient