Constructive and eloquent as ever.

Not great logic there......anybody can make a wild accusation and there should be some evidence to corroborate it e.g. injury/CCTV/Witness......



........'Scott Moore isn’t a malicious player. We’re going to fight tooth and nail to overcome this accusation. There is zero video evidence. It was in the melee so I don’t know how anyone has seen anything untoward. Scott is adamant he didn’t gouge the player and we wouldn’t be fighting his corner if we didn’t believe him. Scott has simply said he was defending himself as you would with so many people on top of you.”

There is no fact in your statement to be true or false only your maybes and assumptions which you conclude would make him guilty even if there is no evidence.

Why is it that when a lower team starts to improve the RFL desides that not Going happen while one of their four teams are in the lower half, they then try a player 2weeks later for throwing a punch when he is under a pile bodies.

Hi RAF
We have a whole thread on this. I'll merge this one in.

Thanks Master Yoda.

Looking more and more like this is based on hearsay than any actual hard evidence. In which case, would it be possible to take the MRP and Widnes to the COAFS?

Will have to wait and see what evidence next week brings, but the audacity of an individual to complain about the person they're beating the out of possibly having their hand in his face at the time strikes me as cheek of the highest order.

The question isn't whether the robbery happened though is it - it's about who should be punished for it, and clearly there has to be some evidence to justify punishing someone. So much evidence, that it has to be beyond reasonable doubt before anyone is sentenced.

In a civil matter, the burden of proof is significantly lower - 'on the balance of probability' - so the panel has to decide if, on the balance of probability, did Scott Moore deliberately poke Aaron Heremaia in the eye whilst under a pile of bodies and having punches rained down on him. The fact that he's taking proper legal representation should help the panel realise that their decision has to bear scrutiny, which is not always the case.

If you report it at the time it happened how do you know there is going to be some evidence at that stage?

Or by your logic everybody reporting a crime firstly needs to carry out their own investigations to make sure there is enough evidence to corroborate their claim?
It is the duty of those that investigate the crimes to collect the evidence and then decide whether there is sufficient proof with which to bring charges. Who knows what there is at this stage but it's been enough to warrant a 'charge' rather than 'no charge'.

Yes, there is. And of course it's all maybes at this stage. Point to one single occasion where I have said that I think he did it.
To keep things simple to explain the above there are potentially four outcomes here aren't there? Well three I guess at this particular stage. The first one that seems to have been discounted is that a) there is conclusive proof he didn't do it and he didn't do it. If this was the case it would be listed as a 'no charge'.
b) There is also conclusive prood he did do it and he did do it.
c) There is inconclusive proof and he did do it.
d) there is inconclusive proof and he didn't do it.
But even you need to admit that there is a possibility that c could have been the situation. However remote you think it is and however convinced you are that Scott Moore is a top top guy.

... and nobody has said Moore is a top, top guy. Infact there is a general admission he is a bit of a grub. As for a decent barometer, Carter is a tight sod who hates spending the little money the club has, he'd hardly pay for legal representation for Moore if there was conclusive evidence.

Well logically if you report a crime, surely it's not unreasonable for you to think there is evidence to support your complaint, especially if it's committed against yourself, if there's no evidence at the time surely it would suggest evidence has been fabricated at a later date.

I'm not sure that is logical to be honest.

I mean that is a bit of a leap psychologically to suggest you're only going to report a crime if you think there might be evidence.

And in this case I'm not sure why Heremaia or the club wouldn't think there would be evidence considering the game was being recorded and the amount of people around the incident.

So why do all the other items on the list get listed as "charge" until the case is reviewed and then changed to the actual agreed ruling, sometimes, Charge and 8 matches and sometimes No Charge

You are drawing conclusions when you have absolutely no evidence.

Well I would suggest the fact that no one reviewing the evidence, or officiating at the game, raised the issue first time round.
Especially as it says in one of the reviews of the incident relating to Moore that because so many bodies were on top of him, you couldn't actually see if he did anything.

It was raised at the game mate, on the night. To the match commissioner. Even Carter acknowledges that they have been aware of this charge for some time or words to that effect.

Sorry just to add that I don't know what they do or don't have. None of us do. (Apart from the one kid with the inside track that this is all just hearsay).
I'm only on here because your fans have accused my club, its officials and player of deliberately trying to stir trouble. I don't think that would be the case. Our issue wasn't and isn't about Wakefield.

Okay, maybe I'm making myself unclear. Apologies. I'll try again.
If there was no case to answer...i.e. if the evidence was completely clear and conclusive that he did not do it like in scenario a). It wouldn't be going before the MRP. It still doesn't rule out that they might find no charge to answer but they don't bring people to the MRP if they're happy nothing happened. Likewise from what the other fella said it doesn't seem like Carter would spend money if they thought they had a case iron case with no questions.

I can honestly say I don't know anything either.
If you say it was raised on the night then so be it.

The problem is the waters have been muddied by all the Ah Van is innocent posts from Widnes, and the back and forth about how guilty Moore is for the other infringements. (I'm not sure any sane Wakefield fan actually believed Moore was completely innocent. It was pretty obvious what he did)
So it looks a bit like a retaliation against the Betts fine and the Ah Van ban.....whether it is or not.
Whether Moore actually did anything, we might not know if the evidence is only that it was reported. That isn't conclusive enough to find him guilty but is enough to bring him up on charges.
In a fight where someone is on their back with a number of opponents trying to attack him, it has to be REALLY conclusive proof that he did it. Not just his hands were near someone's face.

The fact that the Widnes coach made such a childish outburst after the game hasn't helped how this is perceived; there have been mountains of sour grapes from Widnes fans and Betts about the result, and this just appears to be piling on the misery. And to suggest that Widnes do not benefit from Moore getting a longer ban is nonsense - we're at that point in the season and in relative positions in the table, where any disadvantage to us is an advantage to them. I guess they were so fired up about their good start to the season that they never expected us to be rivals.

Anyhow - if there is evidence that the MRP didn't spot when they previously looked at the incidents from the game in detail - then he deserves a ban; if there isn't, Heremaia and Widnes are worthy of scorn - the only thing worse than trying to deliberately injure an opponent, is lying about an injury to get your opponent banned.

Fair enough mate. I agree that on first viewing with my black and white specs on I did think the Ah Van tackle was just a strong tackle but on subsequent viewings I do have a problem with it and there's little argument it was dangerous and caused the injury to Gibson. I also don't blame Moore for running in the first time. He just had his mates back.

The beef wasn't with you pal it was with Cobb. It was and still is. I've got no wish to go over that again because we could debate it for the next four hundred years and the two sides simply won't agree on it. It's best to draw a line under it, shake hands and move on.


And this is the problem right here.... As I've mentioned above. Your conclusion is to jump right on the assumption that Heremaia or worse the whole club made it up. If we're both agreed that we need clear evidence to convict then we also need clear evidence of a smear campaign surely.

It has made the next review an interesting one.
Selfishly I hope he is proved innocent, or at least that there is no evidence
But if he actually intended to Gouge an opponent, he deserves the big ban.

Mate, I hope that he isn't charged. I'm hoping that it is put down to a genuine misunderstanding. As has been said on here. Moore puts his hand up and catches Heremaia accidentally or Aaron misreads the intent.

It would be ace if after last year Wakey and Widnes were in the top 8 at the expense of Leeds, Hudds and Salford. And also good luck against the Wire on Sunday.

Wrong - it isn't my conclusion at all; I've said consistently that if Moore guilty and there's evidence of his guilt, he should be punished.

I'm also pointing out however, in the interest of fairness, that if the allegation turns out to be spurious, then there should be some recourse for the victim.