I am, seriously.

But Betts is being blamed in this thread more than Scott Moore is. Only one person up in front of the panel.

I'm confused, the game was played ten days since. I'm assuming the panel perused all the games in great detail eight days since ( the Monday?) They saw nothing of note at that time? Yet eight days later they're having another look at the Widnes game. Why? The only conclusion I can come to is that someone has had a hissy fit, or maybe it's just deflection tactics by someone who's out of line with the judiciary and pointed out a gouging claim by a player the week later.
Seems really odd to go back to a game played ten days since.

Exactly especially after games where Brough and Taylor have got away with worse tackles than Ah Vans and they didn't decide to go back nor any further action.
It does seem like someone has thrown their teddy out of the cot.. If Scott Moore is banned with evidence fair enough but if there isn't any evidence to support this citation and he is banned then it just proves that the disciplinary team is a farce and needs a complete clean out with fresh people and new structures. Even before this incident this current review team seem unfit for purpose and obviously don't put enough time into their job thus causing controversy and being allowed to be basically forced by outside people to investigate further for whatever reason to find something. The big clubs especially getting away with stuff - they say they don't but people within the game such as Brian Carney and others have said before.

I can only assume that somebody from Widnes put in an official complaint about the gouging after the panel review had completed their review if the game last Monday and as such it has been looked at again the next available occasion, i.e. the next review panel sitting yesterday.

The name calling was for comic effect but the rest of it I'm totally serious. I also seriously want to know why Betts is not facing a big fine for his personal post match attack on the ref, please answer that - seriously.

For somebody who did not see the incident for some reason you seem to have him down as guilty before he's been in front of the panel.
Whether he was banned or not is irrelevant the question us fans are asking is, why did it not come to light and be dealt with at the original hearing, once again you show your ignorance on the subject by denying any knowledge, for somebody what know nothing of what' happened you seem to have some forth right views.

It has nothing to do with Moore's alleged gouging, You said in your post or words to the effect that Moore had let himself down, my point to you was that had Ah Van not committed his indiscretion in the first place then this pointless differences of opinion would be academic.

I believe that the RFL were reviewing Cobb's performance (seriously) last week (hence he had no Challenge Cup game) and once this was reviewed Betts' comments would be reviewed.

I 100% expect him to get fined for it.

Cobb was never going to be a match official in the challenge cup anyway, he had some other commitments outside of the game which the RFL granted.

'The fact that Moore ran in on the Ah Van tackle (when no one else actually reacted including the officials' - the RFL reacted and gave Ah Van a 5 match ban, so of all the people on the field SM was the only one correct because he saw something (perhaps not reacting in the correct way, but many players push players off in similar incidents and 'get away with it'). I'll exclude Gibson from 'all people on the field' as I feel that he was in no position to take part in the referendum, but perhaps the anguish on his face may have given a clue as to which way he would have voted.

'then took Ah Van's head off' -the RFL seem to disagree with your version:

'No intent to injure the opponent. It is believed first contact was around the shoulder area' (can't see why he got a ban after they said this).
As for 'people at fault', what about your own 'fans' on social media who were basically blaming Gibson for injuring himself in the 'tackle' with PAV!

As other posters have said, it means a lot to WT if Moore is banned ie loss of one of our pivotal players (similar to when Brown does not play for Widnes) and who gains from that? - the teams around them in the table eg ............ Widnes.

Apologies in advance if I've got confused and any of the foregoing is incorrect, but I'm knocking on a bit (ie inclined to drop balls now and then).

I was at a junior game down at Bellevue the other week, and was talking to a chap who knows you and he said something on the same lines

IF he is PROVEN to be guilty then nobody can be blamed for that except Scott Moore himself, and I for one would be very seriously disappointed in any player found to be doing anything so despicable.

What I was trying to say was if the original video was "carefully viewed" for the original citation and the result was "the tribunal feel that the player did throw at least one punch" and "The exact nature and force of the punches cannot be clarified from the DVD footage" then how can they expect the same DVD footage to PROVE any gouging.

Even the most myopic of fans should be able to see the problem there!

If he is found guilty, then Michael Carter/Chris Chester should be asking to see the exact point in the DVD where that evidence exists - without that he has to be found not guilty.