Effectively, he was charged with 4 different things and he only played a quarter of the game, that must be some kind of record ?
I agree that he's added that spark in attack and his return, along with Chester coming in, seemed to make a hell of a difference to the team.
I hope that there is no case to answer but, the fact that it has been brought up, nearly 2 weeks after the game, seems to indicate that there will be a case to answer. Again, this seems an unprecedented action, especially for a player who is already serving a ban.
The one certainty is that he will have copped more from the Widnes players, when he was on the ground, that he can have meted out.

It's a nasty charge, so I hope he didn't do it. I have to say, having seen the replays, I'm at a loss to work out where it's supposed to have happened - he certainly didn't gouge when he pushed Ah Van off Gibson, and in the melee that followed his high tackle on Ah Van, he was on his back for the most part, with Heremaia trying to leather him.

I'm not automatically assuming he's innocent, but the way it's all come out seems a bit fishy.

They say it is in the 19th minute against Heremaia
Which is the incident after the high tackle on Ah Van

So the charge for punching Heremaia in the 19th minute (ie this incident) says


So they have carefully viewed it
They FEEL that the player did throw at least one punch

That to me implies they cannot say for definite that he did even throw a punch - and now they're going to view that same DVD to try and prove he gouged Heremaia!! FFS!!

Guilty - The panel FEEL that Heremaia acted as he did because they believe his side of the story even though the evidence cannot prove it
Sanction - 8 Matches!!


What was Brian Carney's quote - NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE!!

It also states further down....The exact nature and force of the punches cannot be clarified from the DVD footage....

Yet they can see gouging a week after?

So, people at fault for Scott Moore's alleged 'gouging':-

The RFL
Widnes
Denis Betts

Basically everyone but Scott Moore.

Come on, this is one of the worst things you can do on the field and given the nature of the game (which the ref couldn't control) it's not out the question. The fact that Moore ran in on the Ah Van tackle (when no one else actually reacted including the officials) then took Ah Van's head off it's absolutely believable - he's no angel.

Take the spectacles off, means nothing to Widnes if he gets banned or not but this shouldn't be condoned in our game.

The way I see it is a week later the game was reviewed again especially the 'performance' of Scott Moore. I do not know how any evidence can be obtained via video of the game, there were that many bodies involved and the positioning of the cameras (especially from what I have seen) there isn't any conclusive evidence to even charge Moore.
The questions the club should be asking at the minute is why wasn't they made aware when the rest of the charges were publicised. Where is the evidence/who informed of the matter thus was it mentioned in the game by a player? I will openly admitt Scott Moore has been known as a grub but a lot of stuff goes unnoticed with players niggling etc.
Anyway what have Widnes got to gain from the 4-8 matches most likely on top of his 2 match ban you ask? They have got a top 8 spot to lose, I don't think both us and Widnes will be both in the top 8 come end of the season, the bottom four teams still have the potential to get in the 8 especially Salford and Huddersfield. Scott Moore being banned for that period of time if he is given the full punishment will have him out for the rest of the regular season. It doesn't take a rugby league master to notice the huge difference Moore brings and how better we play with him.

The whole review panel needs to be thoroughly reviewed and ammended IMO. Too many things going missed in games and then players copping bans for awkward tackles that they definitely had no control in and see plently in games where players are uninjured from such as HKRs John Boudebzour?? And our own T Arona.

People don't get charged a whim! On a passing comment by a player!

The review panel have obviously seen something hence he's been charged. And he will get a 4-8 game ban on top of his current ban.

Face it, he's let you down big style here.

Has he been found guilty and if so what's the outcome?

Why wasn't it seen last week when reviewed. Do the RFL normally go back to reviewing a match they already reviewed the week before? What other examples of this happening?

None, seems to be reserved for just us - what a surprise.

I'm not a conspriracy nut but this strinks of Betts moaninng and bitterness.

What new evidence has come to light that was not there when the panel first reviewed it? so perhaps he won't get a 4-8 week ban as you insist, maybe it's you what needs remove your personal feelings from the matter and let the panel decide.

Nothing to do with Ah van then