So ed off with our governing body (not for the first time) I vented a spleen to boots 'n' all (for what it's fecking worth!!)

See below.

"Hi I'm writing first and foremost as a rugby league fan although I won't lie and admit that I am also a Hull FC fan.

My reason for emailing is to question the decision to ban Sam Moa over his shoulder charge.

Firstly my argument is that the hit by Sam was in no way intentional to hit Julien Rinaldi in the head, it was purely a poorly timed challenge as Rinaldi appeared to duck just prior to Sam hitting him, surely as Sam is committed at that point he cannot pull out from the move. I accept it was a hit to the head and certainly hope Rinaldi has no lasting effects from the concussion (he's a top player), however given my argument I would have accepted a sending off sufficient ruling from the disciplinary committee.

Secondly, The RFL have now set a precedent that is in affect ruling out the shoulder charge from our game which I consider to be a big mistake. Big hits are what make our game such an exciting sport to watch and now this ruling is putting the whole sporting spectacle in danger of becoming a sanitized version of the sport.

Thirdly, I can only hope the likes of Morley / Bailey are very careful over the remainder of their careers as they have been known facilitate far worse tackles than Sam in the past (and get big raps from Eddie and Stevo!!) as now they may also face bans if they undertake such tackles given the precedence now set.

Please see the following links for evidence to substantiate this.

No YT links, sorry- no penalty / not put on report.

No YT links - at 3 minutes exact - the incident is no different to that of Sam Moa's - no action taken.

One final query is, due to Phil Bentham's incompetence to send Tommy Lee of for a very bad high tackle against Lee Briers on Saturday night, was Sam the victim of Bentham's incompetence seeing as he was the video ref for the Hull v London game? Did he give the nod to Silverwood to produce the red to cover his own mistakes from the previous nights game?

Kind regards..

PS - please share this with Stuart Cummings as his email address has handily disappeared from The RFL Website!

So he was charged, pleaded guilty on the advice of the club, but neither of them accepted anything......wow,,,,,I miss Kavanagh QC......I bet you consulted on that programme!

By pleading guilty (wrongly IMO) he allowed the panel to wholly back up the decision by the officials at the game and by doing so accept total responsibility for the actual outcome. They cannot then say, you've pleaded guilty but SOS because of the resultant to Rinaldi and because this in itself wouldn't suit their MO and in turn they would not then be able to ban others in the future for the same (Which conversely is exactly why Moa should have pleaded not guilty)
As others have said, that is the biggest mitigating factor here, I can see why the club has to a degree as Sam would be a big miss on the field but either someone is not doing their homework in terms of previous incidents or they feel no matter what the circumstances Moa would have being found guilty anyway.
If the latter it is a sad indictment of our game and would be further proof that the game is bent.

From Sam's reaction at the time and that of all the other players plus the inconclusive video footage he should have pleaded not guilty. This then puts the onus on the panel to prove without doubt (the important bit) that he was guilty. There was no clear proof of recklessness (because there was none)
Given the guilty plea the panel had no other option but to give him a game and fine, very dissapointed with the club tbh.

More a case of small club supporter paranoia being alive and kicking. Never have I seen so much whining and so many conspiracy theories over a perfectly justified ban that both player and club have correctly accepted.

HULL FC: No complaints from McRae over Moa ban www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html

HULL FC: No complaints from McRae over Moa ban www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html

It would appear that the club were led to believe that the panel had already made up their mind and opted for the less onerous outcome. A bit like if you have a spot of minor bother with the old bill, instead of a court appearance, you opt for a police caution. What many people do not understand is unlike a court sentence, a caution is NEVER SPENT, it remains on record forever.

If the above is true, then there is a case for abuse of process. Not only has a precedent been set but Moa now has a record that will be taken into account in any subsequent appearance.

seems the club have maybe realised they were never going to win the case so opted for the guilty plea with a lesser suspension even though max for the grade he was charged with was 2 games.

Disappointed but didn't think he would get off due to the fact the decision would be upheld as it was pretty clear to me he the call was either made by Silverwood after viewing the screen or by a whisper in his ear by the guy who made a balls of the game the night before.

I look forward to seeing a plethora of red cards from now until the end of the season as the precedent has now clearly being set on the shoulder charge. Should see the likes of Morley and co who use this tactic missing a good chunk of the season in suspension.

James Clark said to me on twitter last night that the club knew he was not going to be let off so wanted to limit the length of the ban hence the guilty appeal and subsequent strong defence to keep it at one game.

Need to move on now, it's done.

So you're happy to just roll over and completely ignore due process?

If so, you can have no complaints about any decision the tribunal decides to take at any time in the future.

Oh dear.