THE OUTRAGEOUS BANNING OF JOHN BOUDEBZA.

Hull KR hooker - John Boudebza

I can’t ever remember the type of storm that has been caused by a decision made by the RFL’s Disciplinary Panel as there has been this week over the 4 match ban handed out to Hull Kingston Rovers hooker John Boudebza for his tackle on Castleford Tigers captain Michael Shenton in last Sunday’s Round 1 Super League match.

My timeline on Twitter has been full all week of discussions and arguments regarding the severity of the ban or the fact that Boudebza was charged at all.

I was at the Hull KR v. Castleford Tigers match on Sunday and whilst it is not always the best vantage point to be sat in a stand 80 yards away I can honestly say that I did not see anything wrong with the tackle at the time.

I have also viewed the video many times on YouTube and have seen nothing to change my views.

Have a look for yourselves – I’d be surprised if you haven’t already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgx2k8YtWI0

In my mind, 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 YouTube link above then you may well 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 and that is what has led to this charge, I believe.

It is clear that Boudebza had no intention of going anywhere near Shenton’s knee’s and his initial contact with his shoulder is much higher up around the lower part of Shenton’s body, he 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 rugby tackle that is made countless times in matches throughout the world every week. (and by the way I know there doesn't have to be any intent or malice required)

The result of the charge and subsequent hearing was that the Disciplinary Panel decided to upgrade the charge from a Grade B – which carries 1 to 2 match ban – to a much more serious Grade D and ban Boudebza for FOUR MATCHES. Yes, you read that right – FOUR MATCHES.

Every rugby league fan I have spoken to in person and on Twitter cannot understand what has happened this week.

I do not like any player receiving 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 hold my hand up and 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 whoever it is does not understand rugby league. They have minutely followed the letter of the aforementioned rule and not allowed common sense or rugby league knowledge have any say in proceeding – it appears in fact they have neither of these things.

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 and they are just 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.

I think the comments Powell came out with in the immediate aftermath of the match where outrageous in themselves and were basically saying to the RFL – ‘’that was a bad tackle, my star player and captain is out for the season, what are you going to do about it? We can’t have this in our game etc etc’’

He vastly overplayed the seriousness of the challenge and I believe that these comments have been heard by the powers that be and have led to this ridiculous decision.

Powell deserves to be warned about his future conduct.

Hull KR immediately appealed the decision and another panel sat on Wednesday night and made the decision to uphold the 4 match ban.

I honestly expected the Appeals Panel to reduce the ban to 1 or 2 matches – how gullible am I??

Rovers had 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 states:

"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."

These are strong and interesting words from the, sometimes, outspoken Rovers Chairman and it is a statement that gives us an insight into what happens at these hearings and maybe raises vital questions about the veracity of the Disciplinary Panel and the procedures it follows.

He also makes a worthy point about the stain on Boudebza’s previously unblemished reputation.

A stain that he does not deserves in any way, shape or form.

Boudebza is a popular player with the fans at Hull KR and we all know that John is not the type of player to even attempt to inflict an injury on a player.

For what it is worth, I think 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 also to the players who are carrying out the same type of tackle every weekend.

Hudgell makes an important point about consistency – which is all everyone really wants to be fair – and states that he is ‘’prepared to wager they don't have the necessary skill set of seeing (consistency) through beyond round three."

After Thursday night’s match between Salford Red Devils and St. Helens they now have a challenge in the very next round 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 was helped off with, what could or could not be, a serious knee injury.

Interestingly, it was the same referee, Silverwood, but no player was put on report – why??

A failure of consistency immediately.

The Salford player involved – I’m not 100% sure who it was so I will not name them – tackles 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 than they have against Boudebza – if they do not then questions will need to be asked and answers given.

The RFL Disciplinary Panel have put themselves in a corner with the Boudebza case and must show consistency – if not then Hudgell will be proved right immediately and there will need to be a serious review of the Disciplinary Panel’s procedures AND personnel.