totally agree. our game leads the way in so many ways for other sports and it is again leading the way in incompetent inconsistency with regards to these types of incidents

Maybe they had a chat with the panel when they first arrived and after that decided on the best way to approach things?

The club seem content they have had a fair hearing, I don't understand why fans seem to know better.

If it was just Hull fans then it could be we are just being blinkered, however fans of several other clubs and indeed players from other clubs don't think it was a red card offence and no ban should have been given.

As for the second point; the studs up tackle is an illegal tackle in football so is justified as a red card. The shoulder charge tackle in rugby league is perfectly legal. Now when you consider the shoulder is pretty much a fixed point unlike the arm or elbow then surely every time you use your shoulder to tackle you are being reckless/careless because once you are commited you have no control about where it makes contact. If the player sees it coming and is able to avoid full contact so isn't knocked out does that make the tackle any less reckless/careless or is it now result based?

The club can't very well say anything else, can they? Fans aren't under the same restrictions and can compare Moa's treatment with identical incidents that have received different treatment and draw their own conclusions as to the fairness being demonstrated.

Game not on sky = knock on Rinaldi

I can understand the red card, but I don't agree with it, and I do not think a ban was required at all.

For me the challenge was acceptable. The punishment was out of proportion (No intent by Moa).

Does anyone know if Rinaldi was asked what he thought of it? Or does the RFL 'know best' and don't need to ask the player who was the 'victim'?

A studs up challenge isn't an automatic sending off offence in it's own right. It is when careless/reckless or using excessive force is added to that challenge. I suppose if comparing that wording to rugby then I guess there could be an argument that Moa was perhaps reckless, but not really in my eyes. Rinaldi's body position/awareness sadly made that hit (although perfectly legal in most cases) dangerous given the end result. Harsh on Moa, but just the sending off sufficient for me.

Even going back to Makali Aizue's similar type of hit on Scott Wheeldon a few years ago - altho' impact was mainly centred around the chest, Scott still took a portion of Aizue's shoulder on the chin. We all raved about that at the time and similar hits now. I hate to think that we start to follow football's recent craze of red cards, based on potential intent rather than actual outcome.

So the club believed he was guilty and tehre was no point denying it?

I don't believe for a second that the rfl have told Hull that moa was guilty before he turned up at a disciplinary hearing

Me neither. Made up, unsubstantiated nonsense.

I didn't say studs up was an automatic red card I said its an illegal tackle so when it's also reckless it deserves a red card. The shoulder charge is a legal tackle but the precedent seems to now be set that if you make any contact with the head it must have been reckless. If that's the case then just ban the shoulder charge altogether and remove the doubt. I agree with the rest of your post.

I didn't say that it was before they turned up.

Through one mechanism or another it was made clear to the club that Moa would not be let off, and at that point the decision was made to plead guilty in order to minimise the ban.

Believe what you like.

I could believe your made up version of events or I could continue to believe that the club came to their own conclusion that moa had contravened the rules in some way and were trying to mitigate the punishment.

just another video to compare it to
Search frank pritchard on everyones favourite video sharing site, a couple of videos and compilations.

So the following from Hull FC's Head of Communications is all bollox then?

[ii understand they weren't going to let him off. Once this was clear, pleading guilty was obv to ensure just 1 game[/i

[imy understanding that guilty plea meant we wud be pretty much assured of a 1 game ban n nothing more. We compiled strong case tho[/i

And what makes you think I made it up?



Don't judge others by your own standards.

OK,someone else made it up and you believed them. Either way there is no evidence to suggest it is true, in fact the following extract from mcrae's statement would suggest it's complete bollox:

[i"I can't see us appealing. It was a fair hearing, they listened to our mitigation but at the end of the day it is all about opinions and interpretations," [/i

If mcrae thought they'd made their minds up before he went in then he'd hardly be coming out telling everyone it was a fair hearing now would he?

Do you still believe the moon landings were faked and that the queen ordered MI6 to kill princess di?

When you add in this, I think it's pretty clear all of your conspiracy theories are blown out of the water, or are you suggesting mcrae is complicit in things?

[i"I can't see us appealing. It was a fair hearing, they listened to our mitigation but at the end of the day it is all about opinions and interpretations," [/i

It was Clarkey, so I doubt he'd make something up and then broadcast it all over t'internet. In his own name. Which identifies him as a club employee. You feel free to believe that he would, though.

McRae's statement tells you what happened [iafter[/i the club decided to plead guilty. Not before. And he's hardly going to be controversial when there's no benefit in doing so - particularly when we want the RFL to be nice when rearranging the Catalans fixture. Funny - I never had you down as naive before.

I'm not as naive as those who believe that pearson would allow the RFL to blatantly make their mind up on a player's guilt before a disciplinary hearing and communicate it to the club.

Please C&P what clarkey (who is completely full or shoite as we all know) posted on twitter and we'll look at what he has actually "said"

What a stupid question.

Everyone knows it was Prince Phillip.

Part of the alien lizard men conspiracy then?

Look at the new NRL 2012 promo video (on that well-known website)

Red Hall Tuesday nights would be a long drawn-out affair

Why do Hull fans always read into stuff and imagine some kind of conspiracy? Maybe there is complete truth in what Bomber and Clarkey have said and they club are happy they got a fair deal even though they wanted a better outcome.

Still can't believe the whole situation. Should ave never been a red and the 1 match ban is laughable. Proves the RFL would rather be stubborn rather then admitting one of their representative officials were wrong.

Feel bad for Moa, did a great shot and got punished for it.

What conspiracy? People throw that word around a lot but no conspiracy is required here.

And I'm sure the club feel they got the best deal [iavailable[/i. I'm also sure they don't want to be picking fights with the RFL over something as relatively trivial as a 1 match ban. It's not compulsory for fans to be happy with the outcome though.