This isn't a serious post, is it? Really?

So because it doesn't suit your myopic opinion it can't be serious?
I thought you were being a genuine RLFan, not a troll. Seriously.

I am, seriously.

But Betts is being blamed in this thread more than Scott Moore is. Only one person up in front of the panel.

I'm confused, the game was played ten days since. I'm assuming the panel perused all the games in great detail eight days since ( the Monday?) They saw nothing of note at that time? Yet eight days later they're having another look at the Widnes game. Why? The only conclusion I can come to is that someone has had a hissy fit, or maybe it's just deflection tactics by someone who's out of line with the judiciary and pointed out a gouging claim by a player the week later.
Seems really odd to go back to a game played ten days since.

Exactly especially after games where Brough and Taylor have got away with worse tackles than Ah Vans and they didn't decide to go back nor any further action.
It does seem like someone has thrown their teddy out of the cot.. If Scott Moore is banned with evidence fair enough but if there isn't any evidence to support this citation and he is banned then it just proves that the disciplinary team is a farce and needs a complete clean out with fresh people and new structures. Even before this incident this current review team seem unfit for purpose and obviously don't put enough time into their job thus causing controversy and being allowed to be basically forced by outside people to investigate further for whatever reason to find something. The big clubs especially getting away with stuff - they say they don't but people within the game such as Brian Carney and others have said before.

I can only assume that somebody from Widnes put in an official complaint about the gouging after the panel review had completed their review if the game last Monday and as such it has been looked at again the next available occasion, i.e. the next review panel sitting yesterday.

The name calling was for comic effect but the rest of it I'm totally serious. I also seriously want to know why Betts is not facing a big fine for his personal post match attack on the ref, please answer that - seriously.

For somebody who did not see the incident for some reason you seem to have him down as guilty before he's been in front of the panel.
Whether he was banned or not is irrelevant the question us fans are asking is, why did it not come to light and be dealt with at the original hearing, once again you show your ignorance on the subject by denying any knowledge, for somebody what know nothing of what' happened you seem to have some forth right views.

It has nothing to do with Moore's alleged gouging, You said in your post or words to the effect that Moore had let himself down, my point to you was that had Ah Van not committed his indiscretion in the first place then this pointless differences of opinion would be academic.

I believe that the RFL were reviewing Cobb's performance (seriously) last week (hence he had no Challenge Cup game) and once this was reviewed Betts' comments would be reviewed.

I 100% expect him to get fined for it.

Cobb was never going to be a match official in the challenge cup anyway, he had some other commitments outside of the game which the RFL granted.

'The fact that Moore ran in on the Ah Van tackle (when no one else actually reacted including the officials' - the RFL reacted and gave Ah Van a 5 match ban, so of all the people on the field SM was the only one correct because he saw something (perhaps not reacting in the correct way, but many players push players off in similar incidents and 'get away with it'). I'll exclude Gibson from 'all people on the field' as I feel that he was in no position to take part in the referendum, but perhaps the anguish on his face may have given a clue as to which way he would have voted.

'then took Ah Van's head off' -the RFL seem to disagree with your version:

'No intent to injure the opponent. It is believed first contact was around the shoulder area' (can't see why he got a ban after they said this).
As for 'people at fault', what about your own 'fans' on social media who were basically blaming Gibson for injuring himself in the 'tackle' with PAV!

As other posters have said, it means a lot to WT if Moore is banned ie loss of one of our pivotal players (similar to when Brown does not play for Widnes) and who gains from that? - the teams around them in the table eg ............ Widnes.

Apologies in advance if I've got confused and any of the foregoing is incorrect, but I'm knocking on a bit (ie inclined to drop balls now and then).

I was at a junior game down at Bellevue the other week, and was talking to a chap who knows you and he said something on the same lines

IF he is PROVEN to be guilty then nobody can be blamed for that except Scott Moore himself, and I for one would be very seriously disappointed in any player found to be doing anything so despicable.

What I was trying to say was if the original video was "carefully viewed" for the original citation and the result was "the tribunal feel that the player did throw at least one punch" and "The exact nature and force of the punches cannot be clarified from the DVD footage" then how can they expect the same DVD footage to PROVE any gouging.

Even the most myopic of fans should be able to see the problem there!

If he is found guilty, then Michael Carter/Chris Chester should be asking to see the exact point in the DVD where that evidence exists - without that he has to be found not guilty.

Seems some Widnes fans see themselves as judge, jury and excutionor, yet the England assistant coach says she 12 yo daughter can ref better than Mr Cobb, what a advert for our game

What time are we likely to know the outcome ?

Not being heard until 17th May :0 lost for words

Quote ="djcool"Not being heard until 17th May :0 lost for words'" www.rugby-league.com/article/374 ... g-schedule

Quote ="djcool"Not being heard until 17th May :0 lost for words'" www.rugby-league.com/article/374 ... g-schedule

If Moore is found guilty on solid evidence where you can actually see him commit the foul, I will fully support whatever ban he is given.

BUT

The timing is very suspicious.
The lack of action on Denis Betts is suspicious.
And the match highlights do not provide any clear view of the alleged incident - again there is a lot doubt.

If Moore has a charge to answer, so should Heremia.
It's Heremia that makes first contact with the face area and leads to both players grabbing near the face, like you do when you grab someone by top of the shirt.
In the hustle and bustle of players running in, it's easy for a grab at the shirt to go wrong.

It's a joke to be honest. Agree that if Moore is proven to have done it, then he deserves his ban, horrible thing to do.

Not really much to add other than it's bizarre how this conveniently appears 10 days later, then isn't heard for another 10 days after that. Meanwhile Heremaia, who was sat on top of Moore laying into him plays on...

Oh and for the Widnes fan chelping up - check out your own supporters reaction to Ah Vans yellow before you come with the "conspiracy nutjobs" line.

Completely agree with everything above. The only thing I can think of is further evidence of gouging has come to light since the disciplinary hearing? The lack of action against Denis Betts is not only astonishing but very inconsistent and unprofessional of the RFL in my opinion and creates a precedent for appeals from other coaches who make inappriate comments about referees...

Was 19th minute the tackle on gibson, or after moores tackle on ah van?

I thought that was about the time both were sent off

If it's when they both got sent off, they must have good eyes.
The only thing you can really see, is after White lays into Moore, they have a scuffle and White is stood up looking a bit confused but at no point touches his eyes.

I think Dennis Betts' mum must have spotted the incident on her mobile phone video after the match and shown it to her lad.

So you believe everything the RFL come out with?