SOS sets a precident for the future that any tackle legal/illegal ending up with a headinjury intentional/unintentinal will be a red card. That will change our game completely.

The only outcome can be no case to answer.

Silverwood had a very poor game and this was a catastrophic error.

I don't entirely agree with your boiling it down to those key questions, I think the key element is in that it wasn't an attempted tackle, which gives a reckless element. This was a deliberate collision and aggressive impact, as opposed to head contact in the act of tackling. I think your questions more relate to if there was intent.

Not ideal but if you put this beside Watmough's smashing of Burrow in the WCC a few years ago. Watmough cleaned him out but his head impact was with the chest of Watmough in the act of tacking him. Slightly comparing apples and oranges but trying to be clear that contact in the act of ‘tackling’ is different.

On this occasion if I were an official, I would take the view that if this had been in the act of tacking, that would be without intent and not reckless, completely accidental. However not being a tackle as such makes it reckless in my view – that’s the beauty of opinions, you can yours and I can have mine, neither of us has to be right and neither of us sit on the RFL disciplinary panel.

Only my view of course, other differing opinions exist offered only in the way of interest as a neutral! I do think there is a furore on the thread mixing up intent with actual or in my case recklessness, they do differ and that dinstinction is important - like studs up tackles in football where you "win the ball", they are outlawed becuase of the liklihood of causing injury, not becuase they are always a foul or always result in injury and often happen accidentally when people over stretch or are wrong footed. We are either not going to allow head contact in our sport, or we are and thats about the size of it I am afraid.

Just to add to this discussion.

Does anyone think Moa deliberately attempted to attack the head?

Can accidental contact with the head ever be a red card if using a tackle technique that is legal?

If Moa deliberately went for his head then red card is justified. But surely that means that any deliberate contact with the head is a red card?

If it was accidental and the tackle technique is a valid one does that mean that any accidental contact with the head is now a red card?

Does the fact it was an aggressive hit make any difference? Should the fact Rinaldi was knocked out come into it? If exactly the same contact happened but it didn't knock the player out is it still a red card?

For me Moa used a legal tackle technique with the intention of dominating a tackle and hopefully dislodging the ball. Their was no intent to attack the head and it could be reasonably assumed that the chance of contact to the head was no greater than normal. The result of the tackle doesn't change any of that IMO.

Lots of high tackles are unintentional,when say a halfback is too quick for a forward and they hang an arm out,but if its high,its illegal.! Tommy lee's tackle was an absolute disgrace against warry on saturday,bentham had a perfect view of it and bottled it. That was a sending off,but when are refs going to start singing from the same hymn sheet.?

I'm thinking back to a St Helen's vs Rhinos game, where Ryan Bailey went in with the shoulder, connected, and momentum took his shoulder into the players face "can't remember who though" this tackle went unpunished even with the Saints player leaving with a bloody nose. The Moa tackle is very similar, and the game was rightfully stopped due to an injured player, but there is noway it was a sending off! If that's a sending off, half the nrl players would be banned week in week out!!

I am sure that if Antonio Kaufusi had deliberately shoulder charged a smaller Hull FC player in the head that it would not be seen as anything other than thuggery.

The shoulder charge against a ball carrier is outlawed. This tackle was a shoulder charge.
Making contact with the head or neck of an opponent is outlawed. This tackle saw a player deliberately aim his shoulder into a players head and neck.
Moa injured an opponent with a dangerous strike with the arm/hand/shoulder.

There are no mitigating circumstances such as e.g. a slip.

Moa has been in front of the judiciary four times for making contact with the head or neck of an opponent since July 2009.

He will miss the maximum games for this offence which should be a five match ban.

It is a shame but if he had tried to disguise his attack with e.g. any attempt to make a tackle then he may have stayed on.

So if i dont follow the masses and agree with everyone then im a troll? Get a grip. It was s stupid pointless tackle that backfired, simple as that!

No it isnt

Since when?

but swinging an arm round will sharps neck is fine
have you been following the right sport?

Of course it was an attempted tackle! What a daft thing to say. The shoulder charge tackle is perfectly legal in our game. If someone attempts to execute such a tackle and the player falls into it, it is no different whatsoever to him attempting a tackle with his arms and a player falling into it.

How many more times do you have to be told your talking crap? Either shut up or provide evidence of this rule!!

Oh dear. We have a union fan in our midsts.

O'Meley had a similar hit on Roby a few years ago knocking him out too and if i remember correctly there was no further action taken.

How did you feel London performed in the lineouts ?

The tackle aside, you described a side that was 22-4 in the lead and looking very comfortable as 'completely disjointed'. You said our heads went down, when in fact the very opposite happened. You're either a troll, or completely clueless. Or both.

As I said, happy to agree to disagree - I actually think there is a distinction between a shoulder charge and a tackle in the rules, but no drama, as I said I have no vested interest either way other than happened to see it and have done bits in the game over the years. I respect your opinion even if I dont actually agree with it.
I might revise my reckless to careless, it is less divisive, the actual wording is: when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

Tuesday's sitting of the panel will tell us how the RFL view it - but thought it was worth all black and whites considering that if the outcome is poor for Moa, it is not a fix or a conspiracy against Hull, that there are other ways of viewing the incident equally valid.

The big issue for the RFL is not to adjuducate on this incident, but to achieve consistency on whatever stance is taken.

Since when have the rules been changed? It maybe outlawed in Yawnion but not in League!!

As for Antonio Kafusi he made a deliberate attempt to take off Sharps head with one of the most blatent swinging arms you will see this season not more than a few minutes after Silverwood had shown red to Moa, if Moa's was deemed a red then so was Kaufusi as the swinging arm is indeed outlawed but totally differnt outcome and inconsistency.

=#FF0000Edited

Watch some of these and gocompare them to last night hit!!!!

That point I agree with but the problem is they will defend the Ref and call no doubt, this type of tackle will then be heavily scrutinised and penalised by the officials for a few weeks then it will be back to normal as usual with the RFL.

If this is deemed as anything other than no case to answer I shall expect to see red cards aplenty in the games to come as you see this in every game every week.

The Kris Welham hit on Reece Lyne in the friendly is an example he hits Lyne with the shoulder around the same spot as Moa hit Rinaldi which also knocked Lyne out but that was deemed fair and clean!! Its either penalised or it isnt.

oh look, kaufusi taking mannerings head off

Make of it what you will but: =#FF0000sorry, you can't (Sorry if I'm not allowed to link this) Or search for "Harrison Hansen gets a huge hit by Adrian Morley" on the site we all know. Followed by this: www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?1611 No Charge - "Initial contact shoulder to shoulder, player’s opponent falling into challenge, no misconduct"

Make of it what you will but: =#FF0000sorry, you can't (Sorry if I'm not allowed to link this) Or search for "Harrison Hansen gets a huge hit by Adrian Morley" on the site we all know. Followed by this: www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?1611 No Charge - "Initial contact shoulder to shoulder, player’s opponent falling into challenge, no misconduct"

Moa has previous at the rfl for a similar tackle and just received a caution... therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2095

Moa has previous at the rfl for a similar tackle and just received a caution... therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2095

Moa has been charged with a grade B offence for a dangerous shoulder charge so we will see what happens tomorrow

Graham Hallas is on the committee so we should be OK.