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?

He was great first time at Hudds when he was on loan from saints. He got an England call up at 18 based on his first stint at the Giants. He was going to be the next big thing- and it certainly looked like him and roby would be a massive force to be reckoned with, he was getting the "big-i-am" and he needed careful mentoring. He went back to saints and they let him get ruined.

It is a bit gutting as he has in my opinion been a major catylist in the up turn in form. His distribution and decision making at dummy half gets us on the front foot giving Miller and Finn space to operate effectively. Unfortunately Howath, although a hard worker with skills of his own, doesn't provide the same platform.

The guy has issues with a fairly chequered history of misdemeanors so I'm not massively surprised he's landed himself in hot water. I just can't see where it's come from and why the RFL have had a second bite at the cherry.

I cant see why either, but think the RFL have set the stall out now, when it comes to re reviewing matches.

wonder if they will be consistent, and re review other games too. I doubt it.

Quite liked MC's comment that we have a player from 1926 in front of the panel this week also.

As we have a crucial run of fixtures, and with the injuries starting to add up, I would look to bring some one in on loan, who can cover 6,7 or 9.