Rabbitiohs-bound Jack Wighton has been suspended for three matches and is set to miss the Round 1 match in Las Vegas with his new team-mates after being found guilty of biting.
Wighton, who will join South Sydney from Canberra next season, was referred to the NRL judiciary after Knights five-eighth Tyson Gamble alleged he had bitten him during his final match for the Raiders in last Sunday's elimination final loss.
The 30-year-old pleaded not guilty to the dangerous contact offence but the panel of former Panthers forward Tony Puletua and ex-referee Paul Simpkins decided he had bitten Gamble's left forearm after it was pushed in his mouth.
Gamble complained to referee Ashley Klein in the 48th minute of Sunday's game after he wrapped his arm around Wighton's face in a tackle attempt before pulling his arm away and alerting the match officials to the incident.
Kangaroos coach Mal Meninga provided a character reference for Wighton, in which he said the actions were "out of character", but the hearing was also told he had four previous judiciary offences this season.
After announcing his retirement from representative football before this year's Origin series, Wighton - a member of last year's World Cup winning Australian team - is set to miss the start of the season for Souths, including the Round 1 clash with Manly at Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas.
However, the Rabbitohs are expected to seek an exemption for the All Stars fixture to be included in the three match suspension as Wighton has been a regular fixture in Indigenous All Stars teams.
NRL judiciary chairman Geoffrey Bellew SC said in his summary of findings that the panel had been satisfied that Wighton had intentionally bitten Gamble.
Although they felt Gamble's arm should not have been pressed into Wighton's mouth, biting was not an acceptable response by the Raiders centre.
Wighton on report after biting allegation
Summary of findings
Because of the manner in which the case was conducted by the parties,
the only issues for the panel’s determination were whether:
- there was a bite, or in other words, a gripping of part of player
Gamble’s forearm with player Wighton’s teeth; and - if such bite was made out, it was deliberate.
In determining the first of those issues, the panel accepted that player
Gamble should not have had his arm in the position that he did.
However, by particular reference to Angle 1 of the footage between 1m 23s and 1
30s, the panel were satisfied that there was a bite in the sense described
above.
In making that determination, the panel were satisfied that at the
conclusion of that excerpt of footage, player Wighton’s mouth was seen to
open, an action which, in the panel’s view, was consistent with it being
closed immediately beforehand, and thus consistent with a biting action.
The panel took the view that those conclusions were also supported by
the footage in Angle 5 between 5m 43s and 5.45s.
The panel also took into account the fact that upon withdrawing his arm,
player Gamble made an immediate complaint to the referee that he had been bitten, as indicated in the referee’s report.
Whilst the Panel did not consider that this was, of itself, evidence that a bite had been inflicted, it took the view that such immediate complaint was corroborative of the fact that it had been.
The Panel also considered that the photograph of player Gamble’s arm, whilst once again not itself evidence of a bite, supported the finding that a bite had occurred.
The panel did not consider that it was open to infer that the complaint was made by player Gamble for some tactical or related reason.
As to the second matter, the panel were satisfied on the whole of the evidence that the bite was inflicted intentionally.
The panel were satisfied that what was depicted on the angles of footage referred to above sustained a clear inference that player had Wighton had moved his head
forward towards the arm of player Gamble and had bitten him in the manner described above.
That action, in the Panel’s view, was entirely inconsistent with an accidental or reflex action, and consistent only with a deliberate act. In terms of penalty, the Panel took into account the fact that:
- as previously stated, player Gamble’s arm had been placed in a
position in which it should not have been placed; - some pressure was applied to player Wighton as a result.
- the actions of player Wighton, although intentional, were executed on the spur of the moment; and
- no injury was inflicted to player Gamble.
All of those factors, in the panel’s view, mitigated the offending.
However, the panel wished to make it clear that player Wighton’s action of deliberately biting player Gamble was an entirely unacceptable response to the position in which he had been placed, that such actions have no place in the game, and that any penalty necessarily had to act as some deterrent to players who might be minded to commit a similar offence.
Moreover, the panel took the view that player Wighton’s record, whilst not
an aggravating factor, did not assist him.
Ultimately, the panel accepted the concession expressly made by yudiciary
counsel [Patrick Knowles] that the incident was towards the lower end of the scale.
In these circumstances, the panel determined that a penalty of 3 matches was
appropriate.
Live Blog
8.15pm - The panel has returned a decision of a three-match suspension.
8.05pm - The panel is now deliberating to decide the length of ban.
8.00pm - Ghabar said there were extenuating circumstances given that Gamble had his arm in Wighton’s mouth and said two match ban was sufficient.
7.55pm - Knowles concedes that Gambles arm shouldn’t have been in Wighton’s mouth and said the bite wasn’t at serious level.
However, he said that while Wighton has a long playing record he also has a long judiciary record and had four previous offences this season.
He said it was a deliberate bite and has asked that Wighton be banned for four matches.
7.52pm - Ghabar has submitted a character reference on behalf of Wighton from Australian coach Mal Meninga, which was read to the hearing.
Character reference
"Jack is highly regarded for his competitive nature, but has always shown fair mindedness on the field.
"He plays the game of great spirit and has done so for over 200 NRL games, during which time he has also achieved the competition's best and fairest Dally M award in 2020.
"I believe his actions are definitely out of character and not part of Jack's demeanour whilst on the playing field.
"I would ask that the judiciary panel take into account Jack's contribution to our great game over a long career when ascribing him a penalty for this offence."
7.50pm - Jack Wighton has been found guilty of a biting charge and the panel is now considering an appropriate suspension.
7.05pm - Chairman Bellew is now giving the panel directions before they begin their deliberations on a verdict.
Bellew told Puletua and Simpkins to ignore the fact that Gamble hadn’t testified and evaluate the case based on the evidence presented.
6.58pm - Ghabar said that Gamble was not present to follow through with his onfield complaint and questioned his motive.
“Canberra was leading by 10 points. Bear in mind this was the opposition’s best player," he said.
"Whether it was a sin bin or send off, he was seeking to gain an advantage."
6.50pm - Ghabar continues in his summation.
“We don’t have anything to suggest there were teeth marks in the nature of a bite or a puncture. It is just non-existent," he said.
“You need to find some evidence of a clamping down of the mouth. You can see his mouth, you can see his mouth guard, there is no opening or closing, no movement of facial muscles.”
6.42pm - Ghabar is now summing up Wighton’s defence.
“The real issue is was this a bite and was this an intentional bite. Is that the manner in which the indentation came to be on player Gamble’s arm,” he said.
Ghabar noted that biting was a serious charge and told the panel the video and still photo were inconclusive.
6.38pm - Knowles said there was an instant recoil of player Gamble’s arm and he made an immediate complaint to the referee.
"You see the indentation. Common sense would tell you that mark is made by a bite,” he said.
6.35pm - "You see the moment before the bite player Wighton’s mouth is open. Then there is the contact and then player Wighton opens his mouth again,” Knowles said.
“You can see for yourself that there is an indent above the strapping on player Gamble’s arm.
"You can see there is a slightly glossy film on player Gamble’s arm.
"There is an indentation made by the lower teeth and saliva on the arm. This is the result of an intentional bite.”
6.30pm - The hearing has now moved to submissions and Knowles has told the panel that he believed this was a case of intentional biting.
6.28pm - Knowles suggests to Wighton that he was annoyed by the presence of Gamble’s forearm around his mouth.
Wighton said: “I was discomforted”.
Knowles said: “in the heat of the moment you wanted him to get his forearm out of your mouth so you bit him”.
Wighton replied: “That is not correct”.
6.25pm - Under cross examination by Knowles, Wighton agreed that the game is physically tough.
Knowles said it was a “pretty ordinary tackle, wasn’t it”.
Wighton replied: “What do you mean. How many games of rugby league have you played?”
6.20pm - Wighton told the hearing he was wearing a mouth guard.
“It was a normal tackle and as I was going to the ground his forearm wrapped around my moth with extreme pressure," Wighton said.
"He squeezed my head really hard. That explains why there were teeth marks but there was definitely no bite.
"His forearm actually fell into my mouth before I could shut it. He has his whole forearm in my mouth applying extreme pressure.
"There is full body weight and full pressure. That explains why there is teeth marks because my mouth is jammed fully open but at no time did I clench one bit.
"Not at any stage did I bite down. His arm was just jammed in my mouth and his full body weight was on me. There was nothing I could do.”
'The officials have to make a decision based on what evidence they have' - Annesley
6.12pm - Knowles read an extract of the referee’s report from Klein.
Referees Report
"Tyson Gamble immediately reacted and pointed to his arm, I recognised this as a potential allegation of biting and stopped the game immediately.
"As I approached I had a look at his arm and saw a mark. The mark I saw would be consistent with one row of teeth. It was also surrounded by what appeared to be saliva.
"Tyson walked away at which point I asked if he wanted to continue with the allegation. He returned again showing his arm and commented on the saliva that was present in the area.
"I called the touch judge John Stone onto the field who also viewed the mark, while the video review official viewed the vision.
"The video review official explained that Tyson in the process of the tackle had placed his arm in the mouth of Jack and the Bunker couldn't be certain that a bite took place. I placed the incident on report."
6.10pm - Knowles has submitted a still photo.
6.08pm - The hearing has opened with Knowles showing video footage of the incident without sound.
Tyson Gamble can be seen showing referee Ashley Klein what he alleged were bite marks. Wighton is indicating to Klein that Gamble’s forearm was jammed in his mouth.
Tyson Frizell tackled Wighton low and comes out of the tackle clutching at his shoulder, while Gamble is pointing to his left forearm.
6.05pm - The case will be heard by judiciary chairman Geoffrey Bellew SC and panel members Tony Puletua, the former Panthers forward, and former referee Paul Simpkins. The NRL legal counsel is Patrick Knowles.
6.02pm - Wighton's hearing has begun with the Raiders forward appearing via video link. He is being represented by Sydney lawyer Nick Ghabar.
5.00pm – The hearing for Wighton will begin in Sydney at 6.00pm AEST.
