Could we not appeal the length of the ban, despite the guilty plea?

I really don't understand the guilty plea if it was to try and get less games. The maximum punishment for that grade is 2 games isn't it? Why not plead not guilty and accept the chance of 2 games? By pleading guilty they just gave them the perfect excuse to back the red card without even having to prove it was the correct decision so a ban was bound to follow.

He's been given the minimum sentence for an offence that he apparently pleaded guilty to. Where's the grounds for appeal?

Unless our case was that he wasn't guilty of a Grade B offence but was guilty of a Grade A offence. That might hold a sliver of a chance but TBH it would more likely be a waste of time and effort.

Just putting ideas out there. Not sure how or why we would tbh

When you look at Tommy's two matches and Sam's one plus the time he spent off the pitch on Sunday it looks a tad unjust.

I await the next shoulder charge with anticipation, I want consistency and there has been precious little of that from Red Hall over the years.

then if he got 2 games appeal, down to 1

I'm sure the likes of Adrian Morley will oblige over the next few games.

Over the years we have always had the Shi77y end of the stick when it comes to the Red Hall: Kirk Yeaman = 4 games for tackling Super Stuart Fielden, despite his previously unblemished record. Big club bias is alive and kicking, you only have to look at Bailey's indiscretions over the years for proof.

It shouldn't cost us points. Even if he'd got 2 games we should be capable of beating Wakefield at home with or without Moa.

I don't give a toss whether or not we're flavour of the month with the RFL, I'd prefer we didn't kowtow to them when we've done nothing wrong, which in this case I don't believe we have (apart from entering a guilty plea).

Yyyyaaaawwwwnnnn, stop playing "the victim" again. Bailey was spear tackled twice on friday night and didn't make it out for the 2nd half suffering from concussion, there's no-one crying about it at the Leeds club. You Hull fans really are starting to sound pathetic chuntering on about Bailey this,big clubs that, move on and accept Moas' ban like big boys instead of blubbering schoolboys. He did it, he was guilty and he's paying the price. Is it really that hard to understand ?

It's so annoying that you can't resist returning to comment? What a sad little life you must lead.

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.