1 match ban for a player who is hardly going to change a game on his own, suck it up and move on I say.

And what exactly would he do to not 'allow' it? Assuming that he was even part of the Hull delegation, that is.


Do your own investigating. Coddy's posted some of it earlier and Clarkey isn't hard to find on Twitter.

Which is exactly what the club have decided to do.

Indeed, and given our current "stock" with the RFL I see no reason to rattle their cage further.

Will we really miss Moa against Salford, and if we do, are we really a top 8 club?

Though it could easily be argued that Moa's absence, alongside O'Carrol's injury, could significantly affect our chances of winning the game. Any match against SL opposition with only two recognised props will be a challenge.

so the RFL should take into account injuries when handing out punishments?

(I'm pretty sure you're not suggesting that)

Do you think they haven't in the past? Or taken a team's imminent fixtures into account?

If so you're the naive one

You and your fishy friend throwing around accusations about "due process"

pearson is taking on the RFL/hetheringtons/leeds over the signing of an academy player. Do you seriously believe he wouldn't take action if he believed there had been some dodgy dealings over a disciplinary hearing for a 1st team player which meant him missing a game where we really can't afford to have him out?

Nice retreat. Are you french by any chance?

I doubt he is but you're clearly bonkers

Could this be the future of Rugby League.

Look I'll try to explain this in simple terms that even the hard of thinking, like yourself, can understand.

It's pretty obvious, from statements made by club officials, prior to Bomber's piece in today's HDM, that the club were tipped off that Moa would be found guilty as charged. The fact that the club got suckered into an attempted plea-bargain does more than suggest an abuse of due process, especially when prior to last night's disciplinary, all the indications were that the charge would be defended.

The due process is:

Player charged

Player admits guilt and receives sanction

or

Player pleads not guilty, is heard and is either found not guilty or found guilty and receives sanction

If the latter and player still feels he is innocent, he has the right to appeal, the appeal to be heard by disciplinary members not on the original committee. Appeal hearings have often overturned original sanctions, they have also often upheld original sanctions. They have rarely increased the original sanction.

Now what, is so difficult to understand about not following due process?

You see, you just can't help yourself can you? Always desperate to try and appear intellectually superior, always failing. Now if I hadn't seen you in the 80's with your massive podge, running around a rugby field, whistle in hand, looking like a throwback to some long lost era, I may be able to take you seriously, but, alas I did so I can't.

So if you'd like to post some of these statements which make it "pretty obvious" that the club were "tipped off" about moa getting a ban before the committee had even convened then I'd love to see them. If, however, they relate to some spurious comment by james clark on twitter that could be construed in a number of ways then save those old fingers of yours because it's merely your interpretation which is likely to be wrong give then content of mcrae's post meeting statement

I bet Julien Rinaldi wished he'd been wearing that number when Sam Sam the battering ram stopped him in his tracks.

Oh Dreary me!



Will the Middle Leg ever stop trying?

Same old "intellectual" Middle Leg "running rings round dumb asses on here all the time" and talking about "how well endowed he is".

Get a life FFS !

I love it when I get under people's skin

You only have to look at the promo video for the Hull V Rovers friendly with the big hits.God help the derby. It may end up seven a side if it's anything to go by on the Moa incident.

You must be getting me mixed up with Albert Speckman.

For once, why not make even a half-hearted attempt at responding to the message instead of the messenger

It's becoming clear that you don't actually understand the meaning of the term.


Good grief - that's poor even by your standards.



You really can't see the difference between the two situations?

Honestly?

Retreat is clearly another word you have problems understanding. I'll give you a hint - not being d to spoon-feed information to someone too lazy to look it up for themselves is not a retreat. It's having a life away from these boards.

The fact is the club have stated they have had a fair hearing and are moving on, they should know as they were there and have all the facts.

Yet fans on here know better.....sorry but the fans don't know better.

And of course no organisation ever says one thing in public while thinking another in private.

The club apparently went to the panel intending to plead not guilty. Something happened that made them change the plea to guilty but with mitigation. The speculation is about what that might have been. That's not a case of anyone knowing better, it's a case of a discussion based on various statements made by club officials.

This is my point you said the club 'apparently'. You dont know. The club do know and have accepted it which means I have too as I have no reason to think they never got a fair hearing as both Bomber and Clarkey have said the did.

I think the player being knocked out mate all the difference. It gave the ref time to think.