Paul Vaughan ban; tribunal minutes are revealed

Having been charged with Grade E unnecessary contact with an opponent for lifting St Helens forward Sione Mata’utia by his shirt collar in the dying seconds of Friday’s Super League game, Vaughan’s case was referred to the tribunal last night.

The Australian, who was supported at the hearing by chief executive Karl Fitzpatrick, interim head coach Gary Chambers and head of player welfare, pleaded not guilty but was found guilty, with a £500 fine imposed as well as the suspension.

Warrington are said to be appealing the verdict and it is understood said appeal will be heard this evening but as things stand, the ban would rule Vaughan out of the remainder of the season regardless of how far the club progress in the play-offs, should they get there.

The minutes of the hearing have now been released, with the main branch of the club’s defence being that Mata’utia was merely playing for time with his side six points ahead with less than a minute to go as opposed to being injured.

That was supported by a submission made by the Saints forward to the tribunal in which he admitted the slowness in which he got to his feet to play the ball was an act of gamesmanship on his part.

However, the tribunal ruled the charge to be proven and concluded that the decision on whether or not Mata’utia was injured was not Vaughan’s to make and that it was up to the referee to intervene if he feels an opponent is time-wasting.

The one-match ban Vaughan served for dangerous contact earlier this year and a $1,000 fine paid following “contrary conduct” while playing in the NRL for Canterbury Bulldogs last year were also considered as “aggravating factors.”

Here is the full club submission and the reasons for the tribunal’s decision…

Player in attendance alongside Karl Fitzpatrick (CEO), Gary Chambers (Acting Head Coach) and Kylie Leuluai (Head of Rugby). Player pleads Not Guilty.

KF explained that the club understood the rule that had been introduced and the reasons for it. However, in this instance they believe the opponent was not injured, and this is confirmed via a statement that he made via e-mail.

KF then talked through the incident. He felt that the opponent was never motionless at any point and he required no medical treatment following it. The opponent was trying to slow the clock down in the final minute of a close game and he was not injured or indeed was potentially injured.

The grading of the charge means that PV could potentially be suspended for 4-matches and this comes at a point in the season where the Play Offs and potential Grand Final are imminent.

GC added that at the time of the incident St Helens were down to 12-men and just six points ahead. The opponent was never prone at any point.

KF concluded that this incident does not warrant a Grade E or F charge. The club believe this is at worst an infringement at the ruck and a penalty would have been sufficient. The opponent is getting up to play the ball.

Decision:

Guilty

Reasons for Decision:

The defence in this case argue that Mr Matautia 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 Matautia, 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 Matautia was not in fact injured from the contact.

This is of course, further confirmed by his e-mail, in which he clearly states that he was playing for time and was uninjured, but the whole crux of this offence is about the situation at the time of the tackle. More importantly, the crux of the offence is about players not making those decisions or those assessments.

Mr Matautia was very slowly getting to his feet. To that end, he was not behaving in a way in which an unqualified person could instantly rule out an injury of any sort. Mr Vaughan rightly assessed, as it turned out, that Mr Matautia was simply wasting time. But it was not his assessment to make at the time, and no amount of hindsight alters that position.

So, whilst the Tribunal consider that this was very much at the bottom of the scale for an offence of this sort, they are reasonably satisfied that it has been proved.

The whole point of this offence is that players in the heat of battle are not to make assessments as to who is injured or not.

Players must leave opponents to get to their feet or receive treatment. If they are time wasting the Referee should intervene. Players cannot take it into their own hands.

Each player has a duty of care to their opponent and to ensure that their actions do not in any way endanger that opponent.

Decision On Sanction:

Aggravating Factors:

17/04/23 – Dangerous Contact (Grade B – 1 match)

29/05/22 – Contrary Conduct (EGP - $1,000 fine)

Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal thank both sides for their submissions.

Given the findings the Tribunal feel they have no choice, however, they do feel that any suspension should be at the bottom of the Grade E scale. They therefore suspend the player for 4 matches. He is also fined £500.