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.

Fair enough but how do we know it even happened?

Jog on. No one has accused anyone of anything. We are waiting to see if there is any evidence first.
You should do the same

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.

Oh give over you myopic oaf. If Moore is guilty then fine he deserves a ban, but that's not proven yet is it!

What is strange and up for debate is the delay in citing him, wouldn't you find that strange if Ah Van was suddenly investigated a week after the Gibson tackle after say he had been let off during the game. Sounds to me like the vile Betts has been acting up again.

You have a lot to be proud of at Widnes, even Ah Van's not a bad lad. However I'd be ashamed to have that big stupid patheic mean spirited petty vindictive fat headed bufoon Betts as Coach, wouldn't you?

Sound like the RFL are trying to placate the moaning git Betts to me.

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