TWO decisions were made last week that in my view reflect badly on Rugby League officials.
The first was the RFL disciplinary panel’s decision to suspend Warrington prop forward Paul Vaughan (right).
The charge was that Vaughan made “unnecessary contact with a player who is or may be injured.”
The charge was ranked as Grade E, which suggests a very serious offence that carries an automatic suspension of four to six matches.
When I heard about the charge, I was very surprised, having watched that game, to be unable to remember the incident in question. If something so serious had happened, then surely, I should have seen it and I should remember having done so.
So I played the video of the game and was amazed to see just how trivial the incident looked.
Having said that, and to be fair to the RFL’s disciplinary panel, it’s worth quoting from what it said, to see whether it is a logical assessment of what happened.
“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.
“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 Vaughan is in no way attempting to assist the injured player. His actions are in a purely negative manner and for his own personal gain.
“The incident was not part of play. There was no need to touch the opponent in any manner whatsoever and the action had the potential to cause further serious injury. The opponent was slow to regain his feet.”
If Sione Mata’utia had been lying prostrate on the ground, all of those words would have been quite reasonable. But the fact is that he wasn’t. He was trying to get up as slowly as possible in order to delay playing the ball because his side was leading by six points with very little time remaining in the game.
That much was obvious to me and it was obvious to Paul Vaughan, who did tug on Mata’utia’s jersey as he was getting up, but not in an aggressive or dangerous manner.
But let’s go back to the tribunal and to their justification of their decision.
“The defence in this case argue that Mr Mata’utia was not injured and that there is nothing in what occurred in the tackle to suggest that he may have been. It is argued that when you consider the footage, he does not stop at any point and is in fact getting to his feet, albeit slowly. He does not receive any medical treatment and plays an enthusiastic role in the celebrations of the try that followed.
“It is suggested that it was clear to Mr Vaughan that this was gamesmanship on the part of Mr Mata’utia, and that what’s more, he has accepted such in his e-mail to the Tribunal.
“To that end, it is submitted that not only was he not injured, but it is also not possible to say that he may have been injured and therefore, the allegation of the charge of making unnecessary contact with a player who is or may be injured, is not made out.
“The Match Review Panel submits that it’s not for any player to make such an assessment of injury, or for that matter, potential injury. These are matters for those who are qualified to make those assessments, namely the Medical Team, whatever the actual position as it transpires is they submit irrelevant.
“It is very easy, the Tribunal think, to assess offences such as this with the benefit of hindsight. It does appear from what he subsequently did, that Mr Mata’utia was not in fact injured from the contact.”
I’m afraid I find those comments completely illogical.
To my eyes there was absolutely nothing to suggest that Mata’utia had been injured. If he had been he would have stayed on the floor and the RFL could have then thrown the book at Vaughan with my full support.
Mata’utia was doing what comes naturally to a player who is playing the ball when his team has a slight lead with a couple of minutes remaining – in other words moving as slowly as he can get away with.
For the RFL tribunal to compare this incident with others that were much more serious, as it did, seems absurd to me.
If I were the Warrington club, I would pursue this case through the courts to overturn a decision that was clearly unreasonable on the facts of the case.
Seeing an obstruction that isn’t there
The next decision that I found totally mystifying was the one by video referee Marcus Griffiths to disallow the try by Oliver Gildart that would have levelled the encounter between Leigh and Wigan on Friday night.
Leigh were 6-10 down at the time and a try would have drawn them level.
They moved the ball nicely to the left, missing out Kai O’Donnell, who ran into the Wigan defensive line clearly on the inside shoulder of Bevan French, not obstructing him in any way.
It was noticeable, however, that French appealed to the referee Liam Moore, who crossed his arms for a no-try decision and referred the matter to his video referee, who amazingly was unable to see that there was no interference whatsoever with French’s ability to move across the field in the defensive line.
He claimed that he didn’t have enough evidence to overturn the original decision.
It was a mystifying decision that could have had strong ramifications for the positions in the Super League table.
If the try had stood and Ben Reynolds had kicked the goal, putting them 12-10 ahead, who knows what the outcome might have been.
If the Leopards had held on to win the game, Wigan would have been relegated to third place in the table, Catalans would have won the League Leaders’ Shield and St Helens would have been second, with the weekend off to come. But instead they have to face Warrington and then travel to Catalans if they beat the Wolves.
Similarly, Leigh would have finished fourth and would have been playing Hull KR at home this week, rather than away.
So that means that one video-referee decision could have played a significant part in five clubs’ positions in the final table and their eventual fortunes in the play-offs.
Those people who are celebrating the fact that every Super League game next year will have a video referee should be very careful what they wish for.
I do think, at the very least, that we should stop forcing an on-field referee to make a decision that goes up to the video referee if he doesn’t know what the decision should be.
“I couldn’t tell whether there was obstruction and I would like you to make the decision,” is what a referee should say in these circumstances.