For anyone who saw the saints cats game.....how on earth has this guy not been charged with gouging on lomax. Because he doesn't play for wakey and is called Moore??

Dave Taylor has got away with a lot of stuff this season, several spear tackles especially

Hes also allegedly got problems off the field from Australia that has caught up with him I read on a rugby league website.

What about jack Hughes on McCarthy scarsbrook the week before blatent eye gouge

Dave Taylor is in a whole mess of trouble - sounds like the try line is not the only white line he has an affinity with...

I think you'd be surprised just how many rugby players have the same problem. I know of several.

they are apparently delaying the decision until on whether to charge him until next week while they gather and review evidence

Sounds similar to what happend when there were accusations against Scott Moore at Widnes.

How much longer do they need? Was obvious at the time and still is. Hoping everyone will forget about it? As per my original post can't believe he hasn't been charged ...... over 2 weeks and counting

Just seen on Twitter guilty of a dangerous throw but not guilty of gouging.

So everyone who watched the game and replays saw Taylor go to the eyes not once but twice but the Moore incident nobody could see anything and he got banned. It does make you wonder

Corrupt....

Shows teams are judged differently and a level playing field does not exist. No wonder players and fans get frustrated.

Seen several incidents of gouging since Scott got banned with no evidence whatsoever. The game is rotten to the core. From bent refs to a corrupt disciplinary panel . If anyone truly independent was to spend the time analysing these on and off field decisions would come to the same conclusion I have. And yes I do believe we have bent refs as well as a bent ruling body.

hardly any interest and no television. so

The less stature in the game you have, the more inconsistentices there are

Judging by the articles earlier this week - some of the refs also believe the RFL is dysfunctional and corrupt; maybe they are also victims, rather than part of the problem?

Corrupt implies someone is making money.
Id be inclined to simply blame incompetence.

I can't post what I would like to say - however some of the decisions the panel make are a joke.
The RFL has less and less credibility with every one of these bewildering decisions.

Utter Joke.

The RFL's obvious bias has become tiresome to the point where i'm pretty much dine with the sport. I have no desire to be spending my hard earned in something as corrupt as it now is.

Quote ="PopTart"Corrupt implies someone is making money. Id be inclined to simply blame incompetence.'" Corrupt..... 1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: www.dictionary.com/browse/corrupt Incompetence suggests no genuine knowledge that there disciplinary decisions are extremely inconsistent but they are fully aware and see themselves as beyond reproach. There inconsistent weaker disciplinary penalty decisions coincide with big teams or big name players..

Quote ="PopTart"Corrupt implies someone is making money. Id be inclined to simply blame incompetence.'" Corrupt..... 1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: www.dictionary.com/browse/corrupt Incompetence suggests no genuine knowledge that there disciplinary decisions are extremely inconsistent but they are fully aware and see themselves as beyond reproach. There inconsistent weaker disciplinary penalty decisions coincide with big teams or big name players..