Case Number:

ON/316/25

Jumah Sambou #18, Oldham

Competition:

Championship

Match:

Barrow Raiders v Oldham

Match Date:

2025-03-09

Incident:

Biting

Decision:

Charge

Charge Detail:

Law 15.1 (i)

Biting

Grade E

Fine:

£250

Sanctions:

4+

Decision On Charge

Player plea:

Not Guilty

Summary of CM's submissions on the Charge / evidence:

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 13th March 2025, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(i) during the above match.

The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred at 08 30 footage time of the above match. In the Panel’s opinion you have bitten your opponent. The Panel believe your actions were serious misconduct and against the spirit of the game.

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade E offence – Biting

The starting suspension range for such an offence is 24 points plus (4 matches plus).

• The Panel reviewed an incident whereby Mr Sambou was placed on report by the match referee.

• Mr Sambou takes a carry into contact and is tackled by his opponent Mr Walker.

• In the tackle Mr Walker can be seen get his arm in tight around the head area of Mr Sambou.

• The referee’s report states the following.

“Barrow #6 Bradley Walker reported a bite allegation on the field, he tackled Oldham #18 Jumah Sambou who was in possession approx. 35m from Oldham’s Goal Line. After the ball was played, he immediately called for the attention of myself holding out his right arm. After separating the players, I called the captains and observed the purple mark visible on Bradley’s arm which was confirmed to TJ Jamie Callaghan also. Because the incident was not seen live, this was placed On Report and play resumed with T2.”

• The Match Review Panel cannot see in the footage provided the biting action taking place.

• The Barrow club forwarded photographs of Mr Walker’s arm which they allege shows that Mr Walker has been bitten.

• Taking the photographs into account, and the footage showing the instant reaction of the opponent Mr Walker, the Match Review Panel were satisfied that Mr Sambou had a case to answer.

• This offence starts at Grade E. This is a serious case of misconduct and Mr Sambou has sought to seek an advantage by showing a complete disregard for the opponent’s welfare and the negative and derogatory manner in he has acted – contrary to the true spirit of the game with such actions having no place on the Rugby League field of play.

Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence:

Player in attendance alongside Mike Ford (MD). Player pleads Not Guilty.

Decision:

Guilty

Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Reasons for Decision:

• Barrow v Oldham match. 9th March.
• JS is tackled by Bradley Walker (‘BW’) and two other Barrow players.
• It is common ground that when they go to ground BW’s left arm comes into contact with JS’s face and mouth.
• Immediately as BW then gets to his feet he holds his arm out and complains to the referee that he has been bitten. He shows the referee a red mark on the inner aspect of his right forearm.
• The referee had not seen anything untoward happen in the tackle, which is not at all surprising bearing in mind where the tackle took place in relation to where the referee was. Similarly, although the Touch Judge was better positioned than the referee, he also saw nothing untoward about the tackle but again that is unremarkable when one sees where the Touch Judge was and the positions of BW’s arm and JS’s mouth.
• Having had the matter drawn to his attention the referee put the issue on report.
• The MRP have reviewed the incident and have charged JS with biting BW contrary to Law 15.1(i). That offence is a Grade E offence.
• The Tribunal saw and heard BW give evidence. He was a very reasonable and decent individual who spoke calmly and clearly. He did not try to exaggerate or embellish his evidence in any way. He is an experienced rugby player. He explained that he had been bitten by JS. He said that he acted immediately and instinctively in complaining to the referee and showing him the mark on his arm. He said that the injury simply could not have been occasioned accidentally and could only be explained by JS deliberately biting him. He produced two photos of the injury, one taken at hospital and another a couple of days later. He said that the photos showed a bite mark with not inconsiderable bruising and a clearer central area with red marks consistent with a bite, albeit perhaps with a gum shield covering the top teeth. He accepted that in the usual way he did hold or squeeze JS at the end of the tackle to slow the next play. He did not accept that at that time there was no more than a simple and accidental coming together of his arm with JS’s open mouth as opposed to a deliberate bite. He said, ‘you can’t bite accidentally.’
• JS also gave evidence to the Tribunal. He said that when they went to ground, he simply tried to break free of BW’s hold and get back to his feet. In that process, as BW was holding him, there must have been brief and accidental contact with his open mouth where he had a gumshield on his upper teeth. He did not close his mouth in any sort of biting action.
• The Tribunal directed itself that this is a serious accusation and the Tribunal should therefore only find the case proved if it is sure of it. The Tribunal did not accept Mr Ford’s plea for 100% certainty.
• Having heard all the evidence and arguments the Tribunal was sure that a deliberate bite had taken place. BW was impressive as a witness and utterly believable. He was not shaken at all by any questions or assertions put to him by Mr Ford. He realised that this was a serious allegation and not one that he would lightly make. On the other hand JS’s evidence that the accidental contact between BW’s forearm and JS’s open mouth was the cause of the significant mark on BW was very unrealistic and implausible. Moreover, it is impossible to understand BW’s immediate reaction on the pitch where he said he’d been bitten and showed the referee the mark on his arm unless he had just been bitten. Further, the photos of the injury and BW’s description of it as a bite mark very much support the inevitable conclusion that this was indeed a deliberate bite and not an unfortunate accident.
• Within the relevant Sentencing Guideline this case falls into the category of ‘Offences not related to the act of playing the sport.’ The tariff for such an offence ‘would begin at a minimum of 6 matches plus.’
• Given that this was a contested case and bearing in mind JS’s good disciplinary record the Tribunal reflects the seriousness of this offence by ordering a 7-match suspension (41 points) and a fine of £250.

Suspension:

7 matches