Bloody hell that's some eagle eyed touch judge pity there not so good at spotting all the other stuff

It all seems harsh to me but we have to try and move on. We don't want to start to appear like the new
'Whino's' of SL. We are in great form and have a lot to be cheerful about right now.

Onwards and Upwards and all that.

Plus we will have a fresh and reinvigorated Scott Moore back in time for the clash with the Rhino's at BV.

Also seems the player and the touch judge don't know the left from right and obviously made clear the panel don't as a picture I have seen shows markings on heremia right eye not his left as given in the explanation and statements allegedly made by the touch judge and heremia. I'm not in the conspiracy game but the lack of consistency makes the entire MRP a joke.
In addition is there now any need for an 'on report' after all the MRP review all games anyway so is this another get out clause for the referees to get out of making a decision at the time?

If the touch judge saw it, why was it left to Widnes to make a complaint. Surely gouging is the greater offence than punching or a high tackle so after consultation with the touch judge surely this would've been the primary reason for the Cobb sending Moore off. Still time to move on.

Reason For Decisionfully aware of the burden of proof required.....The DVD clearly shows that Touch Judge had a good and clear view of the melee and actions of players involved. He was close by and was attentive..."


No it bloody well doesn't - check out the video on Sky Sports website and tell me when at any point in that the Touch Judge can see what is going on on the ground. There are numerous players between him and the incident when this supposedly happened.

I'm not really one for conspiracy theories but this absolutely stinks.

Good point, if the tj had seen it at the time then it should have been in the report for the sending off and thus dealt with at the first disciplinary case ie SM has been 'tried' twice for the same offence!

Furthermore, I seem to recall that the case was delayed because of further evidence. Where's that then?
Forget the Widnes player and his evidence, there was conclusive evidence at the time ie the tj saw it and presumably said so when the referee called all parties together prior to the sending offs. So again, why the delay to the proceedings if the evidence was there at the time it happened and thus at the initial hearing?

See if the RFL bother replying to this email:


Please can someone explain to me how these two pieces of evidence show any consistency, because I am struggling to understand it.

Case Number: ON/403/16
REASON FOR DECISION:

The Tribunal have carefully viewed the DVD of this incident. There are a number of other players involved in the on field melee but this tribunal feel that the player did throw at least one punch whilst he was in the melee and is guilty as charged.
SUMMARY OF CM'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION

This incident took place during an on field melee involving a large number of players from both sides. This player can be seen to lash out, there are reports from the officials who were near to the incident and saw punches being thrown. The exact nature and force of the punches cannot be clarified from the DVD footage.

Case Number: ON/460/16
REASON FOR DECISION:

In deciding upon a finding of guilt in this case this tribunal are fully aware of the burden of proof required. To reach that decision the tribunal have carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions made during this hearing. The evidence of the Touch Judge, Mr Jones and the opposing player have been considered. The evidence of both supports each other as to what they saw and what occurred during this incident. This tribunal are satisfied there was no collusion between these two witnesses and their accounts were consistent and independent. The DVD clearly shows that Touch Judge had a good and clear view of the melee and actions of players involved. He was close by and was attentive. Immediate reports were made by the player and the touch judge to the referee immediately after the incident occurred. The tribunal have considered the involvement of an on field physio who approaches the official. The tribunal are satisfied he had no input or effect on what occurred. Having carefully watched the DVD the tribunal are satisfied this supports the fact that the players right hand was in a claw like attitude and was moving towards the left hand side of the opponents head. The head is not visible but the opponents shoulder and arm are. The accounts of both the touch judge and the opponent are supported by the DVD in that initial contact was with flat of hand on opponents face and then with his extended fingers in the eye area. This tribunal are aware of the seriousness of this allegation but are satisfied this player is guilty.
SUMMARY OF CM'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION

The charge today was a result of an incident involving punching, an allegation of head butting and gouging the in the same game on 29.04.16. this hearing relates to the allegation of gouging the other allegations have been previously dealt with-these charges are as s result of an enquiry made by the compliance manager after complaints by a player and an on field official that an offence of gouging had taken place. The incident occurred during an on filed melee when the player was at the bottom of a group of players and being subjected to some punching during which he had to defend himself. Both a player and a touch judge indicate they saw this player deliberately gouge the eye of the opponent with his right hand whilst he was on the ground with other players. The accounts are consistent and supported by the DVD. It is accepted this player was being subjected to some violence and was defending himself whilst in a vulnerable position-it is not acceptable to gouge in self- defence.

The evidence in the 2nd case indicates that the Touch Judge had a clear view of the incidents in question, enough to see a deliberate eye gouge from Scott Moore, yet 2 weeks earlier that same Touch Judge produced no evidence that any punches had been thrown and though the panel “felt” that at least one punch had been thrown they could not determine the nature and force of the punch(es).
So, 2 weeks earlier the DVD and the officials reports could not conclusively prove any punching going on which surely is much easier to spot than a finger in the eye but now the panel have seen fit to find Scott guilty of a much more difficult to spot offence, especially given the number of players involved that were blocking the Touch Judges view in the video evidence that is widely available to the public. I would never condone gouging but given the nature of the offence I would have expected the panel to have to conclusively prove such an offence occurred and I just don’t see how that has been possible.
On top of numerous other inconsistencies from this panel on other offences I find it very difficult to believe they have dealt with this correctly. There is a growing feeling amongst supporters that this panel are not “fit for purpose” and situations like this just fuel that fire.
I would appreciate your comments on this matter.
Regards

What happened to our legal representation, isn't this where they would get involved ?

Maybe that's why it four games rather than eight.

As far as I'm aware, the burden of proof the panel operate within will be 'on the balance of probability' - and looking at the outcome of the hearing, they appear to have made a decision that would bear scrutiny. It seems harsh to charge a man who was flat on his back, completely vulnerable, and trying to protect himself from several people throwing punches - but there it is.

They do have two problems though; the first is the chain of events that led to Moore being cited for this - in that it's not clear that they followed their own process. The second is consistency and as a result, proportionality - if you trawl all the disciplinary decisions just for this season, you will find glaring inconsistencies and wildly different sanctions issued for what appears to be the same offence. I deal with employment matters and if I dealt with an employee like that, they have recourse to the Employment Tribunal if they think a decision has been unfair or the proper procedure has not been followed; I'm not sure if any such recourse is available to RL players.

Just in time so they can ban him for the cup game the week after for looking too threateningly at a Rhinos player.

You have to question why the tough judge managed to get a good and clear view, 10 days after the event and yet saw nothing to mention in the first hearing

Although Moore may (or may not) have done anything, this incident has a very strange whiff about it and it is diabolical that on a full hearing, the best that they can come up with is the position of the touch judge and yet nothing can be seen on the video.

4 match ban....... total retrospective farce

The RFL think they can walk all over us (And have yet again)

Out of curiosity who did he gouge, their extra player.