The English Super League kicked off in controversial fashion last week, as Hull Kingston Rovers hooker John Boudebza was handed a four-match ban for a cannonball tackle.
I can’t remember the level of outrage that has been generated by a decision made by the Rugby Football League’s Disciplinary Panel as there was last week after the ban was announced.
My timeline on Twitter was filled with discussions and arguments regarding the severity of the ban or the fact that Boudebza was charged at all.
I was at the Hull KR versus Castleford Tigers match last Sunday and while a stand 80 yards away is not always the best vantage point, I did not see anything wrong with the tackle at the time.
I have also viewed the video many times on YouTube and have not seen anything to change my views. You can see the tackle at the 15-second mark in the video above.
The RFL Disciplinary Panel’s decision to charge Boudebza with Grade B Dangerous Contact was wrong.
However, if you read the rule below which covers the charge against Boudebza and then watch the video above, you may have an understanding of why the charge was brought.
‘’Rule – 15.1(i) Detail – A defending player, in effecting a tackle, makes dangerous contact (either direct or indirect) with the supporting leg or legs of an attacking player who has been held in the tackle by a defender(s), and who is deemed to be in a vulnerable position, in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.”
The term in brackets (direct or indirect) gives the RFL Disciplinary Panel a lot of room to move, which led to this charge.
Boudebza, a French international in his second season of Super League, had no intention of going anywhere near Shenton’s knees. His initial contact with his shoulder is much higher up, around the lower part of Shenton’s body. Boudebza did not originally aim to even make contact with his legs.
Boudebza then attempts to pull Shenton to the ground and this is when his body comes into contact with the back of Shenton’s knee, causing the injury. No intent, no maliciousness – just a tackle made countless times in matches throughout the world every week (I am aware that there doesn’t have to be any intent or malice for a player to be charged).
The Disciplinary Panel decided to upgrade the charge from a Grade B – which carries a one to two-match ban – to a much more serious Grade D and ban Boudebza for four matches.
Four matches!
I do not like any player suffering a season-ending injury, whether it is in Round 1 or Round 20, and I have written previously about my disdain for the cannonball tackle. If Boudebza had carried out such a challenge and caused this injury, I would have been one of the first to say ban him.
But four matches for the tackle you have witnessed in the above video is diabolical and outrageous.
I don’t know who mans the Disciplinary Panel these days and views the videos – I know it used to be former players – but they clearly do not understand rugby league. They have not allowed common sense or rugby league knowledge to have any say in proceedings.
A good way to judge whether a tackle is illegal or not is to look at the reaction of the players around the tackle at the time it occurred – on this occasion you will clearly note that not one Castleford player reacts negatively towards Boudebza; they are ready to carry on with the game until Shenton is unable to regain his feet.
The referee, Richard Silverwood, did not blow up for a penalty and only put Boudebza on report when he realised that Shenton was injured.
The only people claiming that Boudebza’s tackle was illegal were Tigers coach Daryl Powell and Shenton himself.
Powell’s comments in the immediate aftermath of the match were outrageous, basically saying to the RFL ‘my star player and captain is out for the season, what are you going to do about it?’
He vastly overplayed the seriousness of the challenge, but these comments were heard by the powers that be and led to this ridiculous decision.
Hull KR immediately appealed the decision and another panel sat last Wednesday night, coming to the conclusion that the four-match ban should stand.
I expected the appeals panel to reduce the ban to one or two matches – how gullible am I?
Rovers kept their own counsel all week and allowed the necessary procedures to be completed before releasing a statement on Thursday, via chairman Neil Hudgell, in which he said “the RFL disciplinary process has shown itself not fit for purpose”.
(You can read the full statement at the bottom.)
The strong words from the outspoken Rovers chairman give an insight into what happens at these hearings, and raises vital questions about the usefulness of the Disciplinary Panel and the procedures it follows.
Hudgell also makes a worthy point about the stain on Boudebza’s previously unblemished reputation – a stain he does not deserve.
Boudebza is a popular player with the fans at Hull KR, and he is not the type to willfully inflict injury.
The people responsible should front up to the media and explain how they came to this decision to make things much clearer – not just to the supporters and the player and club involved, but players who are carrying out the same type of tackle every weekend.
Hudgell makes an important point about consistency – which is all anyone really wants – saying he is “prepared to wager they don’t have the necessary skill set of seeing (consistency) through beyond Round 3”.
After Thursday night’s match between Salford Red Devils and St Helens, they now have a challenge to see how consistent they are going to be.
St Helens’ Mark Percival was injured in virtually the same way that Shenton was on Sunday and helped off with, what could be a serious knee injury. Interestingly, the same referee, Silverwood, was in charge, but no player was put on report – why?
A failure of consistency immediately.
The Salford player involved tackled Percival from behind, just like Boudebza did with Shenton.
Again, there was no reaction from the players, no penalty awarded – just an injured player leaving the field of play in obvious pain.
If the RFL are to be consistent then the match review panel must think long and hard about bringing the same charge against the Salford player that they have against Boudebza.
The RFL Disciplinary Panel have put themselves in a corner with the Boudebza case and must show consistency – if not, then Hudgell will be immediately proven right and a serious review of the Disciplinary Panel’s procedures and personnel will be required.
Club statement: John Boudebza
Hull Kingston Rovers have issued the following statement after last night’s disciplinary appeal into the four-match ban given to hooker John Boudebza was rejected.The club’s Head of Rugby Jamie Peacock said: “Whilst we have no option but to accept the RFL’s decision, we would like to place on record our support for John and our belief that there was no malice intended in this tackle.
“Teaching or encouraging players to use a dangerous tackle technique is not something we do or condone at this club and not something that we want to be part of our DNA.
“The tackle was awkward rather than dangerous or reckless and we strongly defend any allegations of intent on John’s part.
“It is our belief that tackles of this nature are part and parcel of playing such a tough sport, but we do of course fully sympathise with Michael Shenton and the Castleford Tigers. Nobody involved in rugby league wishes injury on another player and we hope Michael makes the speediest recovery possible.
“I personally understand just what he is going through as I suffered a career-threatening ACL injury with complications myself a few years ago in an awkward tackle and while I was very disappointed to be injured, I understood that due to the physicality of Rugby League these injuries can occur.”
Chairman Neil Hudgell added: “Yet again the RFL disciplinary process has shown itself not fit for purpose.
“In inadvertently reaffirming the same four match penalty before taking submissions, it can be reasonably assumed that the decision of the appeal panel had been pre-judged to support the initial flawed findings, even though this was meant to be a rehearing of the matter from new. I invite anyone to review the tackle and tell me it doesn’t happen 20 times in every game.
“In this instance a serious injury occurred and I have every sympathy with the player but you cannot ban a player for inflicting an injury caused by the type of tackle effected literally hundreds of times over a season.
“It is appalling that the RFL official ‘prosecuting’ was allowed to introduce inadmissible evidence. He chairs the match review panel and has never played the game. None of the serving members involved in this process have coached in many years, if at all, so have no experience of modern tackling techniques.
“In finding the tackle was ‘careless’ it defies logic that the panel then stepped outside the normal range of penalties for the grade of offence. It is equally appalling that the Castleford head coach can make post-match comments intended to inflame and prejudice this matter, something in relation to which we ought to complain, but expect it to fall on deaf ears.
“It is a sorry situation when a senior figure in one club goes out of their way to publicly influence the suspension of a player at a rival club. Our fans have talked about boycotting the return fixture in protest, and I have every sympathy with their frustrations.
“I feel desperately sorry for the player, who is distraught, to now be labelled the sort of player who inflicts serious injury on another.
“The match review panel and judiciary have set themselves a very high bar here in maintaining a consistency throughout the season, one I’m prepared to wager they don’t have the necessary skill set of seeing through beyond round three.”
Reckon you can pick the winning team? Build your own dream team with Draftstars daily fantasy and compete on any match. For great odds on the NRL head on over to PlayUp. Imagine what you could be buying instead. Set a deposit limit.
Aaron Woods on NRL 360 has questioned whether players are pulling the wool over the referees' eyes when it comes to hip-drop tackles, with…
Australia looks set to host the 2026 World Cup after France pulled out of staging the event after the French government reneged on a…
Coaching Queensland and coaching New South Wales might look like similar jobs, but are actually vastly different. The Maroons boss tends to work off…
If Michael Cheika is serious about becoming an NRL coach, he needs to pay his dues with a stint as an assistant or his…
In their last three outings, the Warriors have been outscored, completed fewer sets, conceded more penalties and missed more tackles than their opposition.
South Sydney will welcome back Latrell Mitchell but have been forced to field three debutants for their meeting with the Dragons on Saturday after…
