for accuracy

Definately.

Barrie Mac gets a bell-on everytime there's an incident like that though. I think it was more telling that none of the Hull players reacted to it (from what I remember). If any of them saw it as deliberate, there would be bodies flying in from everywhere.

The video ref advised whever the ref was when we played london to send moa off

That the point if you go into a tackle like that you are intending to hit the player .The player face said it all He meant it

Substitute London for Hull, and it didn;t Stop Moa getting sent off/banned.

You've missed my point.

Have a read again Neil Pye HFC. I've said it was a red card offence and I expect a ban. I was questioning Barrie Mac's comment saying there was intent in the challenge, I don't think there was.

I've not missed your point atall, infact I tend to agree regarding there being no intent. I also think the Moa/Petual incidents were harsly dealt with.

If you didn't miss it then what the heck were you going on about and underlining that part of my post? Ey? Ey?



Both were clumsy and careless challenges. Personally, I agree with the rulebook on this one that careless/reckless contact with the head is a red card. Both similar to the Inglis one from the weekend - went for a big hit, misjudged it and knocked the bloke out.

Same thing happened with TP on Friday.

That was our friend Silverwood. Terrible decision, but at least some sort of consistency with the Puletua one. Having seen Turner's face after the attack there's no doubt there should have been another red card.

If it had have been Sam Tomkins the red card would have been out before he hit the deck. The lack of milking it caused Silverwooden to delay his decision.

The Ref against London was Silverwood, same as yesterday.

Difficult to milk it when you're struggling to stay concious.

What a wimp, I'm glad he's going now.

Re-watched the game.. sounded like half the crowd booed Turner when he got back up.. sad.

what ban, he is now out injured and the ban will have no bearing as he is out anyway. The ban should not take effect until the player is back in the team in my opinion.

I've always said the same.

How exactly would the RFL police that? The current system isn't perfect, but it's the best thing possible. It's the same system used all the way down to the amateur leagues.

In this instance, all Rovers would do is declare Mika fit for this weekend (how could the RFL prove otherwise?) and get the ban other with.

The 'on-report' system only benefits the next team. If Mika wasn't injured, the beneficiaries of a ban would be Widnes.

The same way they can declare a try or disallow one. The practice of a referee not being able to look on the big screen behind him for confirmation of an incident is stupid. If there is a deliberate intent to injure, then it will be clear. If unclear, THEN refer to the judiciary.

After all, thats exactly what the RFL do, they just take 3 days to do it!

Watching Mika's clenched fist attack to the head on the screen would have given no option but to red card.

Agreed. 'On-report' is a pile of cack.

I was on about the system whereby a ban comes into effect from the time the punishment is given, regardless of the players finess, rather than coming into effect once the player is back fit.

Read what I was responding to.

The judiciary are there to judge the severity of the challenge, not the referee. The rules state that it's a red card if; Careless, Reckless or Intended contact with the head was made. In this case it was - red card.

Should the ref be able to consult the video ref or screen? - yes IMO, but they're not there to judge whether it was intended or how severe it was, that's the job of the judiciary who can take their time in reviewing it and making a decision.

In this case, contact with the head was obviously made, Silverwood should have sent him off.

We lost a player on Monday night, limiting our selections to 3 substitutes. Mika stayed on the pitch (OK, so karma got him with a hamstring tear) and we were worse off for it. The other 16 players had to perform for longer. The video-screen would be used solely to see if a red card or sin-bin were called for.

The RFL use the exact same video evidence to find guilt anyway THEN they offer a punishment.

The ref doesn't need to 'find guilt', they need to see whether contact with the head was made and falls into one or more of the three categories I mentioned. Silverwood made the wrong decision.

IMO it was a red card and the ref should utilise the screen/4th ref. Again, that was not the point I was making originally that you quoted.