Ballcocks



Will miss Catalans, Salford, KR and Shudds but back for Whino's.

Is THAT it

I'm only surprised the corrupt bar-stewards didn't give him the full 8 matches.

Yes, why, did you want him burning at the stake or something ??????

Don't bite Fil, it's been hanging about casting poor bait for a while!

Zzz!

Bottom Feeder, obviously

They messed up then, bet wanted him to miss whinos game but miscounted

I havent really commented on here much, but I often look at the penalties/freekick counts against us especially during this present winning streak. Most games we have been punished more than the opposition, but we have been winning still.
Makes me wonder if the next plan is to suspend half the team so we start losing again and we are put back in our rightful place at the bottom of the league. Don't shoot me down as I can
think outside the box, and I was a better fitter than big lads mate.

Carry on your losing streak its becoming amusing....

You lot should be happy as that dirty er got lucky with the lesser of the grade e he got charged with

He's the sole reason the game kicked off in the first place

I don't condone what heremia did but any player worth his salt would have done exactly the same to moore as he's a grub

It's lucky hep didn't get hold of him as he would have ended up with a broken jaw like the last time he would him up

And Ah Van's role in all this?
I think its time for bed for you , school in the morning.

Look in the mirror...

You sound like the kind of fan that gave Ashley Gibson a load of stick on Twitter, for getting injured.
Top, top,top,top... Oh hang on, that was two months ago!

Lovely how Heremaia gets off with sitting on Moore and laying into him while Moore is on his back, yet this mythical "gouge" that the RLF have pulled out of their backside gets him suspended for 4 games. Where is the evidence?

If he's been found guilty there must be evidence. If so surely the club have a right to see it.

The write up says the evidence is that both the touch judge and the player told the same story.
It can't be seen on video though you can see that he raises his hand to his face.
They gave 4, the minimum, rather than 8, because it wasn't that clear and he was being attacked while in a vulnerable position.
However they made the point that even though he was being attacked, gouging isn't condoned.... Which I agree with.

Questions need to be asked:

1) when was the request to cite Moore received from Widnes and where's a copy of the email or whatever medium it came in?

2) If the request was received by the deadline stated in the MRP guidelines why didn't they make a decision on the same day as they made the other charges and certainly not a whole week later?

3) where is the video evidence which should be conclusive to warrant a guilty verdict (and by conclusive I mean clear intent not s stray finger in the midst of a brawl)?

4) if as seems to be the case there is no conclusive video evidence have the MRP set a new precedent of finding a player guilty purely on the word of another? If so, that's a dangerous precedent to set

5) if the evidence was conclusive why did it take so long to reach a verdict and bearing in mind Moore pleaded not guilty and has a patchy disciplinary record why was he only given the minimum ban for the offence?

I wouldn't hold my breath in getting a response from them though

Bloody hell that's some eagle eyed touch judge pity there not so good at spotting all the other stuff

It all seems harsh to me but we have to try and move on. We don't want to start to appear like the new
'Whino's' of SL. We are in great form and have a lot to be cheerful about right now.

Onwards and Upwards and all that.

Plus we will have a fresh and reinvigorated Scott Moore back in time for the clash with the Rhino's at BV.

Also seems the player and the touch judge don't know the left from right and obviously made clear the panel don't as a picture I have seen shows markings on heremia right eye not his left as given in the explanation and statements allegedly made by the touch judge and heremia. I'm not in the conspiracy game but the lack of consistency makes the entire MRP a joke.
In addition is there now any need for an 'on report' after all the MRP review all games anyway so is this another get out clause for the referees to get out of making a decision at the time?

If the touch judge saw it, why was it left to Widnes to make a complaint. Surely gouging is the greater offence than punching or a high tackle so after consultation with the touch judge surely this would've been the primary reason for the Cobb sending Moore off. Still time to move on.

Reason For Decision:
....In deciding upon a finding of guilt in this case this tribunal are fully aware of the burden of proof required.....The DVD clearly shows that Touch Judge had a good and clear view of the melee and actions of players involved. He was close by and was attentive..."


No it bloody well doesn't - check out the video on Sky Sports website and tell me when at any point in that the Touch Judge can see what is going on on the ground. There are numerous players between him and the incident when this supposedly happened.

I'm not really one for conspiracy theories but this absolutely stinks.

Good point, if the tj had seen it at the time then it should have been in the report for the sending off and thus dealt with at the first disciplinary case ie SM has been 'tried' twice for the same offence!

Furthermore, I seem to recall that the case was delayed because of further evidence. Where's that then?
Forget the Widnes player and his evidence, there was conclusive evidence at the time ie the tj saw it and presumably said so when the referee called all parties together prior to the sending offs. So again, why the delay to the proceedings if the evidence was there at the time it happened and thus at the initial hearing?