It's not a false analogy in that Moa was acting within the laws of the game (or making every effort to), and circumstances beyond his control meant that his shoulder made contact with Rinaldi's head. Of course Moa was trying to hit him - that's the game.



The underlined part is extremely relevant. The only way that the contact could have been avoided is:

a) if Moa didn't try to make the tackle in the first place, or,

b) as you have conceded, if he had superhuman reactions.

It cannot be said to be careless (or avoidable) if he intended to make a tackle within the laws of the game, and the last minute movement of the attacker meant that the contact was unavoidably higher than it ought to have been. How hard is that to understand?



Keep saying it, but they are very relevant. To prove that a player was careless or reckless you have to take into account whether or not they took every precaution [uthat could reasonably be expected[/u to avoid hitting the opponent's head. Moa did take every reasonable precaution and it was only the sudden change of trajectory of the attacker that led to contact being made with the chin. Whether you like it or not, that's extremely relevant.



You would think.



Quite. But it wasn't malicious, negligent or careless.

On the contrary, it was negligent and careless.

So should Adrian Morley have been sent off in 2010 after his hit on Harrison Hansen?

Quite possibly, but he wasn't. I'm not saying that Moa did it on purpose, in fact I'm sure he didn't, but it was a shoulder charge that went horribly wrong. Sending off will probably be sufficient.

As I said, I give up. The words I'm using have different meanings to the ones you're using. I have nothing more to add.

I was using the meaning [iyou[/i had given to the word 'careless'.

At long last you've said something we can all agree on. Case closed.

must admit i was really surprised to see a penalty, never mind a sending off. Especially given what went on in the Hudds v Wire game.

Having seem Moa play a lot in his time at Hull he is not a dirty player. IMO there was not intent to deliberatly attack the head.

Take a look in YT at O'Meley v Gibbs or anything referencing Adrian Morley during his time at The Roosters, or Awen Guttenbeils hit on XYZ player. Virtually no difference.

Silverwood has acted on the basis of the end result rather than the collision itself.

I appreciate that a different game with a different official is not a great comparision, but Tommy Lees swinging arm into Lee Briers nose was a far worse offence.

That Silverwood then does not produce a card of any type for the London No.8's swining arm which cleared Will Sharps head, with fairly clear intent to harm, does beg the question of inconsistancy.

With regard to the Moa incident the reaction, or lack of, by the london players I think speaks volumes.

Hopefully common sense will prevail and Sending off Sufficient will be the end result.

I watched it three times and I reckon Moa lined him up for a shoulder to the head, 100% intent IMO and I suppose the refs.

Quite possibly the worst trolling effort for some time.

You were making sense up to that point.

Assuming we're talking about the same incident, Bryant's first contact was with the upper part of Sharp's back, the arm then sliding up and over the head. So absolutely no comparison whatsoever with a shoulder charge direct to the head of an opponent.

I've seen three of these in memory - SBW on Marcus Bai in the World Club Challenge, Ryan Bailey on Fa'asavalu at Knowsley Road and Moa on Rinaldi. All three looked like perfectly good legal shots at full speed. Viewed in closer detail however, all three were attacks to the head of the ball carrier with the shoulder and IMO should have resulted in red cards for the offender.

If a player lines up an opponent and swings his forearm/upper arm into his face either recklessly or deliberately, that should be a red card. The fact the "tackler" uses his shoulder is a complete irrelevance. If he's reckless or deliberate (and Moa at least qualifies for the first of those) then he should be off the field.

The shoulder charge in itself is not dangerous, it's players failing to exercise a duty of care towards their fellow professionals that make it so.

If you have only seen three of these incidents,you need to go on that video site (YT) and put in NRL big hits,you can't of been watching rugby league long if you have only seen THREE??????

1. It was Kaufausi not Bryant.
2. Moa made contact with the shoulder first then into the head as Rinaldi fell. Kaufausi hit the shoulder, into the face - whats the difference? Still hit him in the head?

But if a player attempts to make a tackle at chest height with his arms and the attacker falls into it, we don't see that player sent off. That the tackler last night used his shoulder is a complete irrelevance.

And one was with frustrated intent, they other wasn't.

Really, then you're quite possibly the most one eyed fan ever. If you don't think he lined him up you're deluded. Love to see your reaction if a Hull player were the victim. Everything about that incident was wrong and any unbiased fan can see it. Very similar to Morley's sending off at the KC against the Aussies.

Are you on drugs? Morley whacked him across the face with his arm. The two are completely different. I knew you were a loser troll but that just takes the biscuit.

Moa has been charged with a grade B offence and will see the disciplinary committee tomorrow. Lee has been given grade C www.rlfans.com/index.php?fid=41&id=240

Moa has been charged with a grade B offence and will see the disciplinary committee tomorrow. Lee has been given grade C www.rlfans.com/index.php?fid=41&id=240

No it's not me who's on drugs it's you one eyed Hull fans, jeez you're beyond biased.

Morley used his arm, Moa used his shoulder - the target and end result were the same - christ it's not rocket science.

The only debate is the level of intent, after watching it a few times I feel the intent was there from the start. Live with it, me and Mr Silverwood do not share your warped view of the world, Hull players get it wrong and are occasionally dirty just like the rest, end of.

If you're not on drugs then perhaps you should be.

Are all the fans of other sides on this thread, plus the countless players and ex players on twitter calling the decision ridiculous biased, one-eyed Hull fans too??

Nah, just ignorant.

Modern day Super League players are ignorant? Funny that the ones playing the game and who could be seriously injured by 'reckless, dangerous' tackles saw nothing in it but a legal hit

You've chosen your bedmate. By association therefore you know knack all about rugby.