Don't know If this has been mentioned as I've not read every page. But Moa is getting lots of support from Super League players on twitter. Seems players feel there was nothing in it

Quote ="BroncOnIon"I don't know how the NRL system works. How many points does he need for a one-match ban?'" 100 points. Have a butcher's: www.nrl.com/nrlhq/referencecentr ... fault.aspx

Quote ="BroncOnIon"I don't know how the NRL system works. How many points does he need for a one-match ban?'" 100 points. Have a butcher's: www.nrl.com/nrlhq/referencecentr ... fault.aspx

Thought this forum was about rugby,not who has the most criminals.Jeez grow up all of you.

No. Nobody's mentioned it.

Wonder if they would still think it if it was their head and them unconscious on the floor.

Personally I find it hypocritical that the same players and fans were calling for Tommy Lee to get a ban but not for Moa. Where is the consistency there? It seems it's ok to hit a player in the head and knock him out so long as it's with the shoulder but catch him with the arm as he's going down and it's a capital offence. Maybe their opinions are coloured by it only being a London player and not Lee Briers.

Catch him with the arm as hes going down?

He lined him up and swung an arm at his head, its a bit different to putting the shoulder into someone. There was clear intent in one incident and no intent in the other imo.

Catch him with the arm as hes going down? He lined him up and swung an arm at his head, its a bit different to lining him up and smashing your shoulder into his head. There was clear intent in one incident and clear intent in the other imo.

Thats better- Now we all know why they were both banned because they are both naughty boys who aim to attack someones head

Moa didnt make direct contact with his head though. It was more careless than intentional. If he wanted to hit him in the head he could of just done like Lee did and aim at it

It was more careless than intentional

How do you know that-You dont know what had gone on before or what he was thinking

I suspect a big shoulder to the jaw is far more effective at knocking a frog out than a swinging bent arm that hits the face on the inside of the elbow joint.

Is this still going on?



FFS, he went for a big shot and it was nothing more than unfortunate that he caught Rinaldi's head enough to knock him cold.

Dangerous? Nah, unlucky. Intentional? Nah, not the head impact. Should it be banned? Nah, we're not frigging RU.

We see shots like that all the time and very rarely is anyone seriously hurt. Move on.

I think the way you can sum this all up is:

All those playing the game, or have played the game - fair shot, should never be made foul play. Part and parcel of a physical game and shots like this can be game changers.

All those who havent played the game - Should be made illegal, was definitely an intentional shot to the head.

When I play, players dont go out to intentionally hurt each other, you do try and physically dominate your opposition however and putting a shot on can change the momentum of a game and shouldnt be prevented.

"dont go out to intentionally hurt each other, you do try and physically dominate your opposition" Really


"putting a shot on can change the momentum of a game and shouldnt be prevented."

It did, Moa got sent of and the frog carried off(and is doubtful for this weekend) (Whilst Moa is banned)-That is game changing for the better- we all agree

You keep promoting illegal play its good for the game

Do you play the game? Ever tried to put a big hit in on the oppostion?

Never felt the need to stick a shoulder into a face, nor knees into a player on the floor, lead with the elbow or any other cowardly cheap shock tactics

Im bought into big shot tackles into the chest that smash players back and give the tackler the PTB reset advantage.

So how about a player steps inside you or changes his body angle at a speed that you cant adjust? The tackle is still legal, catches the guy on the shoulder but then does catch the head?

That's not what happened though is it. It planted straight in the face, he didn't step or duck right the second before, it was reckless and deserved a red, no more, no less and let's just move on

Wilde by name wilde by nature-

Players that get stepped do adjust hence why they generally land the tackle with a flailing arm.

The Frog was upright & running straight and it would seem in your eyes deserved to be hit in the face with a shoulder and knocked back into Paris. Why didnt Moa just bend his back extend his arm bang the shoulder into the chest and clamp the player as he knocked him backwards-A bit like what the books and coaches sometimes try to suggest. anyway.......

Nice summary

Yup, the cretin/clueless point of view summed up perfectly.

Ooh you're a charming little cherub, aintcha?



That's rich when all we've seen from you is dull, humourless one-liners. I suspect you're desperate to stamp your flawed opinion on others but aren't really sure how to go about it, plus you've nothing to back it up. I also suspect you've never actually played the game with grown-ups and don't really understand what goes on.

If you eventually accumulate sufficient grey cells to offer an actual opinion backed up by some evidence, I may take you a little more seriously than my itchy left gonad.

Mr Lister doesn`t like Hull,so if the club managed world peace he would still find some fault.

That's a "no, I can't form my own opinion", then?

Boring.

Good shoulder charge, wasn't it?

He does seem to be a bit of a prat.

I'll leave him to it. He's clearly enjoying himself.