And just so you can see what is behind the red card, this weeks hearing transcript
Decision On Charge (Josh Griffin)
Player plea: Guilty
Summary of CM's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 19th June 2023, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(f) during the above match.
The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 45 52 footage time of the above match. The referees report states the following:
Just before half time, I blew a penalty against Hull FC for a ball steal. Josh Griffin was unhappy with the decision and verbally challenged the call, I told him it was a ball steal and he muttered something as he turned and ran back towards his own team. I was unsure what exactly he had said so decided to leave it alone and not advance the mark. Shortly after this, the half time hooter went and I blew to call time on the first half. Josh Griffin came over and was continuing to argue and gesticulate about the ball steal decision. I told him it was a clear ball steal and after arguing for a short time, he said “f------ b---s---” as he walked away from myself. I raised my yellow card to Josh Griffin, he then said “your [sic] f------ s---”. He began to head towards the tunnel when he then turned back towards myself and said “f------- cheat”. I then upgraded the card from yellow to red.
The Panel believe your actions were unnecessary and are against the true spirit of the game.
In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade F offence – Questioning the integrity of a Match Official
The normal suspension range for such offence is 6 matches plus.
• The Match Review Panel were concerned at the behaviour of Mr Griffin.
• Mr Griffin was firstly sin binned and then red carded following the incident.
• The referee’s report states the following:
Just before half time, I blew a penalty against Hull FC for a ball steal. Josh Griffin was unhappy with the decision and verbally challenged the call, I told him it was a ball steal and he muttered something as he turned and ran back towards his own team. I was unsure what exactly he had said so decided to leave it alone and not advance the mark. Shortly after this, the half time hooter went, and I blew to call time on the first half. Josh Griffin came over and was continuing to argue and gesticulate about the ball steal decision. I told him it was a clear ball steal and after arguing for a short time, he said “f------ bull---” as he walked away from myself. I raised my yellow card to Josh Griffin, he then said, “your [sic] f------ s---”. He began to head towards the tunnel when he then turned back towards myself and said, “f------ cheat”. I then upgraded the card from yellow to red.
• The Match Review Panel see no reason to disbelieve the referee.
• The footage supports that there is clear interaction between both Mr Kendall and Mr Griffin, and this is initiated by the player.
• Mr Kendall is clear that he says he witnesses Mr Griffin state these words.
• This amounts to abusive behaviour towards the referee and questioning his integrity.
• The Panel believed that Mr Griffin’s actions were unnecessary, against the true spirit of the game and brings the game into disrepute.
• Under 1.2 of the On Field Sentencing Guidelines it states that the disciplinary system must support and protect Match Officials.
• Mr Griffin’s standards have fallen below what is expected of a player and amount to Misconduct.
- Grade F due to:
? Questioning the integrity of a referee.
? Repeated foul and abusive language towards referee.
? Brings sport into disrepute.
Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Player in attendance alongside James Clark (JC, Hull FC CEO). Player pleads guilty to using offensive language towards the Referee, but not questioning his integrity.
Both the Compliance Manager and JC were invited to cross examine Chris Kendall (Referee) who joined the hearing as a witness. Adam Swift and Davy Litten (teammates of JG) were also called to give evidence.
JG did not deny exchanging words with CK, however, he was adamant that the words that he had been charged of using were not correct.
JG explained he approached CK after the half-time hooter had gone to speak to him about a penalty that had just been given for a ball steal, saying “Sir, how can you give that as a ball steal?”
He then admitted to saying “f------ s--- call” and walked away towards the changing rooms. He was then called back by CK and shown a yellow card. Annoyed by the situation he walked away and as doing so said “f--- sake, can’t talk to the arrogant prick.”
CK then called out to him and again and gave him a red card. JG walked off and said “f--- that” as he was frustrated with himself.
JC explained it was the final year of JG’s contract and the consequences of the charge were very high. He believed that there was not enough evidence to prove that CK was called a “cheat.”
JG told the Tribunal he was embarrassed by the charge and it was something he had to live with. It was an intense game and could be the last chance for him to win the Challenge Cup. There was a lot of raw emotion and he also felt he had let his teammates down. He had faced criticism following the incident and was remorseful for how things had turned out. He felt that his emotions had clouded his judgement.
Decision: Guilty
Reasons for Decision: This is a very serious incident and they adopt the seriousness of events as put forward by the Compliance Manager. The Referee proved to be a credible witness when questioned and he was sure the words were said by the player. The Tribunal deemed JG not to be credible witness.
Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct) Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:
• Continuous foul abusive behaviour towards a Referee
• Comments abusive of performance and questions integrity
• Comments not made in the heat of the moment as the penalty was given before the half-time hooter and the player had time to calm down
• A breach of the RESPECT Policy
• Brings the game into disrepute
• Potential to affect recruitment and retention of Referees in the sport
Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction: JC said he respected the Tribunal’s decision. He added that JG was out of contract at the end of the season and with just 12 games remaining a suspension as large as has been suggested by the Compliance Manager would not leave much of the season remaining.
JC felt that a lower suspension would be more appropriate and also asked if the Tribunal would consider going outside the grading in this instance.
Reasons for Decision: The Tribunal agree with the grading at Grade F and they have taken into account the players previous similar charge earlier this season as well as his denial to the words used.
Suspension: 7 matches
https://www.rugby-league.com/governance/rules-and-regulations/disciplinary/disciplinary-case?case=17511 