Are you being deliberately obtuse??

Actually Brain Carney released the statement for cob via the renegade guys podcast.

It states 19 minutes and on Heremia. Likewise i cant see anything under that pile of bodies.

Can't be true, no one knows me, I am the master of disguise, I am the Scarlet Pi .......... oh no I ain't


It's a fair cop guv

MC just said on twittrr: for once Im throwing some money at proper legal defence.Sick&tired of the MRP &it will make me feel better when we still lose

Don't blame MC the whole thing doesn't ring true with the time this has taken to come to light.

I am led to understand that Widnes DID report this. When and how I am not sure.

This may be the reason the MRP have gone back to the incident.

If he's gouged, deliberately, then he deserves a ban, but I agree with others, that no player deliberately damages an opponents eyes.

I would think that MC and SM would believe there is no offence if MC is throwing money at a defence strategy. Maybe Hudgell can help out, as it's his line of business and there's no love lost between him and the RFL.

So how long does it take Heremaia to report he was gouged. The game was on the Friday, so three days later he still hasn't reported it? Surely Moore can't be banned on the word of one person, especially one who was laying into the alleged perpetrator whilst he was prone on the floor.

Having watched the footage a few times I reckon Heremaia is a very lucky man to get away with what he did, and ought to keep his mouth firmly closed.

Too right, you can clearly see him throwing a punch as he dives onto Scott!

He was found guilty but took an early plea. He didn't get off as such

I believe that Heremia tried to make the complaint to Cobb as he was leaving the field but was told to leave which is fair enough. It was reported to the match commissioner at that point of the game. It has been in the process of being investigated since. I'm assuming that the investigation is finished they have collected whatever evidence they feel they need and they are ready for the hearing.

If there is evidence to prove it actually happened - ban him for an appropriate length of time, and we will feel rightly let down.

If it proves to be spurious and without any evidence - then I assume the RFL has a process to deal with false and malicious allegations; and I'm sure they'll get around to investigating Denis' outburst... eventually.

Just because something is not proven doesn't mean it never happened? It just means there is a clear lack of evidence.
And Denis has been punished exactly the same as Paul Anderson in the same time frame.

What makes you believe that? I'm pretty certain there is no sound on the video and he makes no motion to point at his eyes.
If it was reported at the time, why didn't they raise it in the disciplinary hearing? All the evidence needed would be the same evidence they would need for the fight in which this incident was supposed to take place.

I'm completely with any ban that comes after evidence of any wrong doing, but all I've seen or heard so far is from Widnes fans who already think Moore is the devil and want him burned at the stake for daring to enter the Widnes post code.

And considering Mr Betts made an out burst that he knew was worth a £500 bill, you'd think he'd have got this one in too to get his money's worth.

Just to add obviously that if there isn't any conclusive proof then I completely agree that there should be no penalty to serve.

I may as well say there is no evidence to prove you are not an alien.

They didn't raise it in the disciplinary hearing last week because they hadn't completed their investigations... they don't put down placeholders for what might be coming in the next few weeks. And how do you know that they'll be using the same evidence as the fight? Why won't this be more in depth, maybe the video is inconclusive? Maybe they've spoken with the match officials, maybe there is an eye injury consistent with an eye gouge? All you need to do is wait. The RFL write up the reasoning for their findings on their website. It will be on that. There might be no case to find? I'm assuming it's not one person's word against the other as you would expect to see 'no charge'.

You may as well. Doesn't make my statement any less true.

Are you for real? Are you suggesting that Moore should face a lengthy ban just because Heremaia says so? What if, for example, contact was made with his eyes during the melee that he willfully and deliberately put himself in the middle of, but it wasn't Scott Moore? Or he copped one in the face, but it wasn't a deliberate gouge? I would love to see the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Widnes way, if this situation were reversed - there'd be a pitchfork wielding mob outside Red Hall.

I see that Denis has now been dealt with - hopefully he's also been advised that being a whiney little b1tch is not becoming of the new England assistant coach.

I am for real and no I haven't said that anywhere. I think that's you looking for an argument mate.
If it's a one against one then I think there would and should be a 'no charge'. It doesn't mean that it didn't happen. If a robbery happens and it isn't caught on camera and it's the victim's word against the robber then it still happened.

No if he was trying to tell him about an eye gauge he would have as the fight broke up.he only went moaning to the ref when he got sent off so obviously disagreeing about the decision.he did nothing to suggest he had been poked in the eye.

We are looking to fight all the way www.totalrl.com/chris-chester-ey ... ott-moore/

We are looking to fight all the way www.totalrl.com/chris-chester-ey ... ott-moore/

This is a disgrace. Days after btw he eye gouged me it's absolute nonsense. Widnes cry babies
. You don't hear Moore saying Herman jumped.and.punched me on the floor. Video evidence in conclusive his word against Moores. No ban It should be. Moore is a pivotal player. Howarth ain't upto it never been a fan and can't pass the ball from the ground. Would not give him a deal no way