I do not enjoy the stop start of televised games for video ref decisions and understand that we can not use the technology for everything however;

When we have a serious injury the game has a natural stoppage and in most cases more than enough time for the video to be reviewed and a comment made to the ref on the field.

Would this also be a deterrent for players that deliberately use these tactics during a game. The matter can still go on report however, if everyone has seen the offence in slow motion from every angle why can this not be used in live play?

Pleaded guilty. Banned for 2 matches.

Plus we would have received a free kick

On that occasion play stopped after the collision between Moa and the other player. On Thursday there was another tackle before play was stopped so don't think they could have gone back to the previous tackle, bit like in VR decisions for a try.

just a thought, I agree in that the VR should have intervened even if it was the previous tackle but think they couldn't

two matches and £300 fine

out of the semi final

Maybe in instances like the this when the player is receiving lengthy medical assistance, there is ample opportunity for the video referee to view the incident and make a call??.....

So his guilty plea means he did it with intent?

I read it that way so why only two matches?

I thought the charge was a reckless tackle, not intentional?

A little bit off thread but I saw a super rugby match on sky this last weekend, and a player went down injured. at the next break in play the ref stopped the clock and asked for video to be replayed and a high tackle was spotted and penalty awarded
Is this something that should be employed at televised super league games both referees discussed and decisions made, took all of 30 seconds and player was rightly penalised, seen a few of these insidents on the RU games think we should look at it

It favours those whose games are not on TV as much, as there's less chance of infringements being called back. I think something needs to be done, but beyond having the same TV facilities at each game it's not going to happen.

Which is pathetic. The tackle was complete. He DELIBERATELY used the knee twice into the neck of a downed opponent intentionally.

We need to look at punishments and how we can improve it. What does Hauraki getting banned do for Hull? 'On report' is a massive cop out.

I thought I read earlier in the season there was going to be a VR at all SL games next season, if so it would be an ideal time to bring it in.

I agree. This is something that bothers me about the plan to have two refs on the field. I'd much rather see video refs at every game.

i have no problem with justice being served up at a later date - in days gone by incidents like this would have seen the offender get away with it. i was more bothered about the fact we should have had a penalty and relieving kick with player put on report (pretty sure they can do this via the replay in the NRL). probabaly requires the video ref at all games over here first, as some posters have suggested

Reel it in a bit. There is no way you can prove intent unless you have Hauraki there willing to admit it.

Also, I know these are hard lads, but I don't think for one second that a player would deliberately knee a prone player at the base of the skull as that could potentially kill the victim.

Or are you suggesting this incident was attempted murder?

When did you stop being a Hullfc fan, ? It was a deliberate foul, as seen quite clearly on the
slow-mo, play back, so how much more proof do you need. Your last remark. Just silly, !!

Careless for me & probably the right length of ban.

Was it intentional? I don't think it was. pretty pointless arguing about it though.

I have never stopped being a Hull FC fan, but I recognise a ridiculous comment when a see one. This makes your opening remark quite silly.

my last comment was not silly at all. A strike to the base of the skull / top of the neck could quite easily kill someone. Putting the words Deliberately / intentionally would add a whole new element to the seriousness of any incident.

Hauraki was reckless and should have taken more consideration to his position and those within his immediate area.

There is no proof of intent.

Intent was there, without question. He admitted it in his guilty plea.

Your last sentence doesn't warrant a response.

I think you will find he pleads guilty to reckless behaviour, not intent which he certainly doesn't appear to admit. Any arguments about his degree of responsibility lie with the disciplinary panel that charged him and we know how we can rely upon them.

Nope. He was charged with reckless behaviour, so all he's admitted to is being reckless.

That is so obvious yet some people still don't seem to get it.

To use their logic, if you plead guilty to manslaughter you're admitting you committed murder.

Wilf states in his Weekly post that a head butt can not kill