There is no physical evidence for two of those though.

TIW is full of old men- most of whom live abroad. Match going Widnes fans don't read or take notice of that, but, this isn't about conspiracy theories if you really think Moore has been cited due to Betts moaning then you're deluded. Widnes will not receive any benefit from 'grassing' Moore up after the event. It makes no sense.

The RFL investigated Joe Cobb's performance the whole of last week which is why this may have been delayed.

But did they 'investigate' Betts' post match comments?

I don't think they need to "investigate' them. He will be getting a fine, just like Paul Anderson did some time after their outbursts.

This is a massive blow. We saw the benefit of Moore when he didn't play yesterday. This could have a major impact on where we finish

Agree, absolutely huge this imo. Anyone know what the evidence is, is there video etc?

So im guessing Moore has admitted the charge or the RFL have conclusive evidence of gouging. Still very strange after been cited 3 times to be charged again the following week.

It must've been when he's was on the decked getting the shirt beat out of him.

That's the only place it can be. It's why I'm wondering what evidence they've got because I must have watched that clip 10 times and you can hardly make him out under all the bodies. Like you say it's all a bit strange, especially as he was pinged for punching in the same fracas.

If he's admitted to it, fair do's but if not it's going to be interesting what evidence there is.

Why didn't Widnes player say anything as he was leaving the pitch?

Having read the disciplinary rules I cannot see why this wasn't dealt with last week and what allows them to decide to deal with it a whole week later. They are supposed to review the match in full and decide on charges the Monday after the game.

There is something about the opposition being able to complain but have to do so within a tight timeframe.so maybe Widnes complained

Hope we don't lose Moore for a gouging ban...as said already he is the best hooker we have and very influential.

If this is the case it'll be a long ban so Trinity may need to go back to Sio starting at 9 & Howarth off the bench. Playing Sio at 13 then at 9 interchange will increase the likelihood of him getting injured/burnt out. Play Simon back at 13 instead possibly?

Wonder what the evidence is to resurrect this gouging charge is? It must be substantial to justify it?

I think it will be from the Ah Van spear tackle. Moore stands up then Heremia runs in and grabs at Moores face and Moore looks like he either grabs back or pushes into Heremias face. TBF it looks like 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

Is this unprecedented or have there been other occasions of the disciplinary panel going back for a second review?