He's an opposition player, so obviously should be taken to the cleaners!
It was NFA to 1 match ban, so his "not guilty" plea has probably meant the "higher" end of the range in terms of punishment. For anyone who can't be @rsed to look, here's the full story...
MISI TAULAPAPA - FEATHERSTONE
FEATHERSTONE V HALIFAX - CHAMPIONSHIP
RANGE OF RECOMMENDED SANCTIONS IN RELATION TO CHARGED GRADE* :
NFA - 1
DETAILS OF CHARGE / REASON FOR NF :
Rule – 15.1(a) Detail – Strikes – Kicks opponent – light contact Grade – A
DECISION:
Charge
INCIDENT:
Kicking in 44th minute
PLEA:
Not Guilty
SUMMARY OF CM'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE CHARGE / EVIDENCE:
Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 2nd June 2016, 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 44th minute of the above Match. You were temporarily dismissed following this incident. In the Panel’s opinion you kicked out towards your opponent making contact with his lower arm after dislodging the ball. The Panel believed this conduct was unnecessary 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 (Kicks opponent – Light contact). 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 No Further Action to a 1 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:
Player accompanied by CEO Pat Cluskey and Head Coach Jon Sharp. Player pleads not guilty to offence. This was not an act of foul play by this player it was a professional foul as he tried to prevent an opponent placing the ball down for a try. It is suggested there were two actions one to dislodge the ball from the opponent and then light contact with the opponents arm. The player was in control of his actions at all times and was sin binned from the field of play for a professional foul not a strike. First contact was with the ball. Player indicates he could see the ball at all times and was trying to dislodge the ball no intent to make contact or injure opponent.
DECISION:
Guilty
REASON FOR DECISION:
Having viewed the DVD and taken into account the submissions made by the player and his representatives this tribunal are satisfied this player is guilty of’ kicking an opponent and making light contact, the charge is therefore made out. The player can be seen attempting to kick the ball from the hands of the opponent on the try line. It is clear he slips and he loses control and makes contact with the ball and then the hand of the opponent.
SUMMARY OF CM'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION
Player was chasing back trying to prevent a try. He chose to place his foot into contact with the ball and then the opponent. It is accepted there was no intent to injure but this was a reckless technique that had an obvious risk and striking contact was made with the opponent.
SUMMARY OF PLAYER'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION
Trying to prevent a try, no intent to injure or malicious act.
AGGRAVATING FACTORS
Potential for injury
REASONS FOR DECISION
Having found this player guilty the tribunal accept this was not a vicious attack. It was incidental to the reason the player used this technique of trying to prevent a try. The tribunal note the player has a disciplinary record and is currently subject of a 2 match suspension. Taking into account all the circumstances this tribunal feel that a 1 match suspension and £100 fine are appropriate.
SUSPENSION
1 match
FINE
£100
