Leigh coach hits out at ‘outrageous’ disciplinary charge after successful appeal as Jack Hughes incident clarified

Leigh boss Adrian Lam labelled the disciplinary charge handed out to Edwin Ipape as ‘outrageous and unfair’ following the Leopards’ successful appeal.

Last Sunday afternoon saw Leigh win 38-12 at Bradford Bulls, with that their sixth victory in seven games, taking them to within two competition points of the play-off spots.

Less than 24 hours later though, two of their stars had been hit with disciplinary charges by the Match Review Panel (MRP) in the shape of hooker Ipape and utility Jack Hughes.

Ipape’s charge for ‘Grade B Dangerous Contact’ was successfully appealed, but has still left a sour taste in the mouth.

‘To be charged for that was just outrageous and unfair. We challenged it, and rightfully so’

Leigh travel to Hull KR on Friday night. Ipape’s charge would not have seen him suspended, and any appeal against a disciplinary charge now carries great risk given the five additional penalty points which can be put onto a players’ record if unsuccessful.

But the Leopards were always confident they would be able to appeal successfully, with this not the first time they have done so in the system adopted at the start of last season having also seen Joe Ofahengaue cleared of an offence last July.

In his pre-match press conference on Thursday afternoon, head coach Lam explained: “We fought the Edwin Ipape charge, and we did a really good job on that.

“We felt that was unfair and completely out of order, so we won that one.

“Our club was very disappointed with the time we had to put into that to get him off.

“It was a charge that skipped Grade A and went straight into Grade B for a three-point charge with £600 fine.

“I’m frustrated we even got into a situation to challenge that. Everyone’s learning from things like this all the time, and it wasn’t going to get him suspended, but that wasn’t the point.

“We thought, in principle, there’s not much else you can do in the game of rugby league than Edwin did when he made that tackle.

“To be charged for that was just outrageous and unfair. We challenged it, and rightfully so.”

‘I understand the rule and we’re very supportive of protecting the injured player, but I think that needs to be looked at’

Team-mate Hughes’ charge brought 18 penalty points and a three-match ban for ‘making contact with a player who is injured or may be injured’.

Leigh opted not to appeal the decision, which will see the veteran miss Super League games against KR, Toulouse Olympique and former club Warrington Wolves, with the last of those taking place at Magic Weekend.

There has been some confusion around when the incident that led to the charge took place though, and Lam clarified: “The incident occurred just before half-time.

“It was (Chris) Atkin running the ball, he slipped and fell into (Josh) Charnley’s knees.

“Jack came over and he (Atkin) was holding onto the ball, Jack wanted a quick turnover, so he’s sort of shoved him to get the ball off him.

“The issue was, the law is you can’t put your hand on any player that could potentially be injured.

“That was the dilemma… is he injured? Was he playing around delaying time? I’m not going to get into that one, it’s a nightmare.”

Hughes is not the first Super League player to suffer the same fate this season.

Wigan Warriors’ Harry Smith, Leeds Rhinos’ Lachie Miller and Castleford Tigers’ Semi Valemei have also both served three-match bans already in 2026 for the same offence.

Lam continued: “I understand the rule and we’re very supportive of protecting the injured player, but I think that needs to be looked at towards the end of the season to put some definite ruling in place as to how that can be looked at differently.

“It’s pretty heavy at the moment, and a few clubs have been caught out on that.

“We’ve had a separate meeting this week to show the clip and say that in these situations, we’ve got to be very careful, regardless of where emotions are at or whether you think the player is genuinely injured.

“We have to support the law in this situation.”