Your conclusion is that if Moore isn't found guilty then Heremaia and Widnes Vikings have been malicious. Which they probably (in my view oviously) havent. Only if it's proven to be malicious can such a decision be reached.

F it is Widnes that have cited Moore and IF he is found not guilty of the charge then, by definition, they will have been malicious (full of, characterized by, or showing malice; intentionally harmful; spitefulicon_smile.gif or with your black and white glasses on, they would merely be mistaken

Ha ha ha ha ha whatevs..

Wrong again; I said if the allegation proves to be malicious, then there should be some recourse for the victim. For example, I work in a safeguarding environment, where staff are encouraged to raise concerns - if they do, and the concerns prove to be unfounded, looking for evidence that the allegations were malicious or in bad faith is standard practice; if you create a system where concerns can be raised, you also have to protect people from false allegations.

You're either dimwitted, or the most one-eyed troll we've ever hosted.

Apologies, you are correct and I am mistaken.


I misinterpreted the following
"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"
I took that to mean that if the evidence is inconclusive and Moore is rightly told there is no case to answer then you meant that Widnes and Heremaia should be the focus of scorn. I have since seen that you have more than clarified your position and we are in fact arguing the same thing. Sorry guy.
Sometimes when your club is the focus of so much negativity there is a tendency to get a bit defensive and interpretation of stuff gets a little clouded.


Yikes, that escalated quickly. I can't vouch for my intellect but apologies if I have appeared trollish. That wasn't my intention. I have always believed that the debate is healthiest when both sides are represented.

WHy is the player who was sent off with our player in the Widnes team for tomorrow's,match @. HKRWhen our player got 2 matchs

Because they both got a match for punching but took the early Plea.
Moore got his ban for running in and the head high tackle.

Moore got his ban for the head high only the other 2 charges were dropped

No they weren't dropped. He took an early plea to reduce his ban.

Gave Scotty a cheer and a well done as he walked round the pitch with the young uns, the look he gave me as he must have thought I was been ironic. Its not often I back players who get sent off , but against Widnes I thought he took the right option as they would have carried on with the Betts bully tactics on us. Good luck with the hearing Scott.

Scott got a 2 match banand as his next case isn't due to be heard until next week is he eligible to play at Newcastle?

Should find out tomorrow?

Thanks. I thought his hearing was next week.

I believe it is tomorrow, may be mistaken though.

Definitely tomorrow.

Thanks for that. Must have misunderstood the date.

So, ban or no ban?

Think it will be a long night!
I don't think we are just going to lie down for this one, we will see.

MC just put on twitter - guilty!

that's at least another 4 matches then !

Can't wait to see the evidence.

Hear hear

Can we appeal, or is that it ?

Hope they release what evidence they base their decision on.

4 match ban