I'd suggest that being told Moa would be found guilty, before the hearing, was a pretty good indication

If the club were told ahead of the tribunal that no matter what defence they mounted Moa was going to get a ban then that is ignoring due process. Basically the RFL have decided to throw Moa and FC to the wolves for political/PR reasons.

When did they tell us he was getting a ban no matter what?

I'm responding to the discussion started by this post
Granted that doesn't specifically state that the club were [itold[/i what would happen, which is why I used the word 'if' in my response.

It most certainly is. I can believe it of the RFL though.

Yup. The furore surrounding two televised 'bad' tackles will have made them want to be seen to be tough, regardless of the actual merits of either case. Moa is a victim of circumstance.

I'm not reading all 28 pages but jeez I think that's a harsh decision on Moa. It's big hits like that that most fans like to see and lifts the crowd. I didn't see any malice in it, just a good big hit using the shoulder. Tommy Lee's tackle deserved a ban (even though it was on Briers), but no way should Moa have even seen red never mind a ban.

I don't think they were actually told or given a letter, more a case of the understanding was he wasn't going to get off.

Club have moved on so should fans.

Whether they were formally told or just 'given to understand' the end result is the same.

People constantly 'moving on' is why this has gone on for decades and will never be fixed...

I posted on this way back before the conspiracy theories started - I think every club thinks they are badly done to: For what my neutral and objective opinion is worth, please read the whole thing before abusing me, I said this lots of times on Monday and agreed to disagree with Rock God - I actually think this is absolutely right and is the appropriate outcome for what was a careless head contact, not a scrap of malicious intent or anything, I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

I would like to see the talent in the game protected like this in the same way that studs up tackles are outlawed in football because even if you win the ball IE: don't commit a foul, the likelihood of injury is too great to the opposing player.

Where this goes wrong and I am sad to be a pessimist is; setting benchmark like this so early in the season is only good if it is enforced unilaterally. Sure there may be 4 or 5 red cards in the next few weekends, but then by the end of March everyone will be adjusted and life will go on. My fear, as always is that the RFL and Referee community WONT apply this directive evenly, referees can't see everything and that is what the video review panel is for.
In short, there is nothing wrong with this as a precedent now, if it is upheld as a precedent, and I am not being one-eyed, if that is Jonathan Walker, Craig Huby, Jake Emmitt, I will still be saying the same thing.

I don't think anyone will disagree with that. If this is the way the RFL are going then all we ask for is consistency of decision making.

Totally agree if that type of hit is worthy or a ban so long as all the the others get a ban then there won't be a problem.
I'll be honest though this ban won't change a thing and a similar hit will go unpunished in the coming weeks.

Thanks for not lampooning me, I got a bit of that on Monday when I suggested it should be a ban.

But don't think if the RFL don't uphold the precedent it is a conspiracy, it is much worse than that: it’s incompetent inconsistency and therein is the challenge facing our game's profile and development!!!

Just wondering how you came to this conclusion? Tommy Lee unequivocally stated there was no malice in his challenge, he also said Lee Briers is a friend and that he was sorry it happened. Likewise, I'm sure Sam Moa didn't mean to smash Rinaldi unconscious with a shoulder to the face. If both challenges had been 4 or 5 inches lower and connected legally there would be no case to answer. Unfortunately both were dangerous challenges to the head and were deemed worthy of punishment.