Hope we don't lose Moore for a gouging ban...as said already he is the best hooker we have and very influential.



If this is the case it'll be a long ban so Trinity may need to go back to Sio starting at 9 & Howarth off the bench. Playing Sio at 13 then at 9 interchange will increase the likelihood of him getting injured/burnt out. Play Simon back at 13 instead possibly?

Wonder what the evidence is to resurrect this gouging charge is? It must be substantial to justify it?

I see you've got over the virus then

I think it will be from the Ah Van spear tackle. Moore stands up then Heremia runs in and grabs at Moores face and Moore looks like he either grabs back or pushes into Heremias face. TBF it looks like 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

Is this unprecedented or have there been other occasions of the disciplinary panel going back for a second review?

He was great first time at Hudds when he was on loan from saints. He got an England call up at 18 based on his first stint at the Giants. He was going to be the next big thing- and it certainly looked like him and roby would be a massive force to be reckoned with, he was getting the "big-i-am" and he needed careful mentoring. He went back to saints and they let him get ruined.

It is a bit gutting as he has in my opinion been a major catylist in the up turn in form. His distribution and decision making at dummy half gets us on the front foot giving Miller and Finn space to operate effectively. Unfortunately Howath, although a hard worker with skills of his own, doesn't provide the same platform.

The guy has issues with a fairly chequered history of misdemeanors so I'm not massively surprised he's landed himself in hot water. I just can't see where it's come from and why the RFL have had a second bite at the cherry.

I cant see why either, but think the RFL have set the stall out now, when it comes to re reviewing matches.

wonder if they will be consistent, and re review other games too. I doubt it.

Quite liked MC's comment that we have a player from 1926 in front of the panel this week also.

As we have a crucial run of fixtures, and with the injuries starting to add up, I would look to bring some one in on loan, who can cover 6,7 or 9.

Effectively, he was charged with 4 different things and he only played a quarter of the game, that must be some kind of record ?
I agree that he's added that spark in attack and his return, along with Chester coming in, seemed to make a hell of a difference to the team.
I hope that there is no case to answer but, the fact that it has been brought up, nearly 2 weeks after the game, seems to indicate that there will be a case to answer. Again, this seems an unprecedented action, especially for a player who is already serving a ban.
The one certainty is that he will have copped more from the Widnes players, when he was on the ground, that he can have meted out.

It's a nasty charge, so I hope he didn't do it. I have to say, having seen the replays, I'm at a loss to work out where it's supposed to have happened - he certainly didn't gouge when he pushed Ah Van off Gibson, and in the melee that followed his high tackle on Ah Van, he was on his back for the most part, with Heremaia trying to leather him.

I'm not automatically assuming he's innocent, but the way it's all come out seems a bit fishy.

They say it is in the 19th minute against Heremaia
Which is the incident after the high tackle on Ah Van

So the charge for punching Heremaia in the 19th minute (ie this incident) says


So they have carefully viewed it
They FEEL that the player did throw at least one punch

That to me implies they cannot say for definite that he did even throw a punch - and now they're going to view that same DVD to try and prove he gouged Heremaia!! FFS!!

Guilty - The panel FEEL that Heremaia acted as he did because they believe his side of the story even though the evidence cannot prove it
Sanction - 8 Matches!!


What was Brian Carney's quote - NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE!!

It also states further down....The exact nature and force of the punches cannot be clarified from the DVD footage....

Yet they can see gouging a week after?

So, people at fault for Scott Moore's alleged 'gouging':-

The RFL
Widnes
Denis Betts

Basically everyone but Scott Moore.

Come on, this is one of the worst things you can do on the field and given the nature of the game (which the ref couldn't control) it's not out the question. The fact that Moore ran in on the Ah Van tackle (when no one else actually reacted including the officials) then took Ah Van's head off it's absolutely believable - he's no angel.

Take the spectacles off, means nothing to Widnes if he gets banned or not but this shouldn't be condoned in our game.

Fair enough but how do we know it even happened?

Jog on. No one has accused anyone of anything. We are waiting to see if there is any evidence first.
You should do the same

The way I see it is a week later the game was reviewed again especially the 'performance' of Scott Moore. I do not know how any evidence can be obtained via video of the game, there were that many bodies involved and the positioning of the cameras (especially from what I have seen) there isn't any conclusive evidence to even charge Moore.
The questions the club should be asking at the minute is why wasn't they made aware when the rest of the charges were publicised. Where is the evidence/who informed of the matter thus was it mentioned in the game by a player? I will openly admitt Scott Moore has been known as a grub but a lot of stuff goes unnoticed with players niggling etc.
Anyway what have Widnes got to gain from the 4-8 matches most likely on top of his 2 match ban you ask? They have got a top 8 spot to lose, I don't think both us and Widnes will be both in the top 8 come end of the season, the bottom four teams still have the potential to get in the 8 especially Salford and Huddersfield. Scott Moore being banned for that period of time if he is given the full punishment will have him out for the rest of the regular season. It doesn't take a rugby league master to notice the huge difference Moore brings and how better we play with him.

The whole review panel needs to be thoroughly reviewed and ammended IMO. Too many things going missed in games and then players copping bans for awkward tackles that they definitely had no control in and see plently in games where players are uninjured from such as HKRs John Boudebzour?? And our own T Arona.

People don't get charged a whim! On a passing comment by a player!

The review panel have obviously seen something hence he's been charged. And he will get a 4-8 game ban on top of his current ban.

Face it, he's let you down big style here.

Oh give over you myopic oaf. If Moore is guilty then fine he deserves a ban, but that's not proven yet is it!

What is strange and up for debate is the delay in citing him, wouldn't you find that strange if Ah Van was suddenly investigated a week after the Gibson tackle after say he had been let off during the game. Sounds to me like the vile Betts has been acting up again.

You have a lot to be proud of at Widnes, even Ah Van's not a bad lad. However I'd be ashamed to have that big stupid patheic mean spirited petty vindictive fat headed bufoon Betts as Coach, wouldn't you?

Sound like the RFL are trying to placate the moaning git Betts to me.

Has he been found guilty and if so what's the outcome?

Why wasn't it seen last week when reviewed. Do the RFL normally go back to reviewing a match they already reviewed the week before? What other examples of this happening?

None, seems to be reserved for just us - what a surprise.

I'm not a conspriracy nut but this strinks of Betts moaninng and bitterness.

What new evidence has come to light that was not there when the panel first reviewed it? so perhaps he won't get a 4-8 week ban as you insist, maybe it's you what needs remove your personal feelings from the matter and let the panel decide.

Nothing to do with Ah van then

I agree, see the end of my last post to why Betts would complain he knows one of us will not make the 8.
I haven't defended Scott Moore in anyway and if he is proven guilty with sufficient evidence he deserves his suspension - letting us down in the process but how a review panel who have already failed to go back and review games where Dave Taylor, Danny Brough for example have caused injuries to players clearly makes you wonder if they do fully review games. At the minute the disciplinary is a farce half of the time they can't even get the players name right.

I have no personal view, I haven't seen the incident to have one.

No idea why it has taken a week but to be honest that's irrelevant, he was banned anyway.

Not sure what Ah Van has to do with Scott Moore 'allegedly gouging, but I'll add it to the list of those who are to blame. Not going over that tackle again and no other player has been accused of it, regardless of what the players thought of the tackle - is that how you should respond?