Maybe they had a chat with the panel when they first arrived and after that decided on the best way to approach things?

The club seem content they have had a fair hearing, I don't understand why fans seem to know better.

The club can't very well say anything else, can they? Fans aren't under the same restrictions and can compare Moa's treatment with identical incidents that have received different treatment and draw their own conclusions as to the fairness being demonstrated.

Game not on sky = knock on Rinaldi

I can understand the red card, but I don't agree with it, and I do not think a ban was required at all.

For me the challenge was acceptable. The punishment was out of proportion (No intent by Moa).

Does anyone know if Rinaldi was asked what he thought of it? Or does the RFL 'know best' and don't need to ask the player who was the 'victim'?

A studs up challenge isn't an automatic sending off offence in it's own right. It is when careless/reckless or using excessive force is added to that challenge. I suppose if comparing that wording to rugby then I guess there could be an argument that Moa was perhaps reckless, but not really in my eyes. Rinaldi's body position/awareness sadly made that hit (although perfectly legal in most cases) dangerous given the end result. Harsh on Moa, but just the sending off sufficient for me.

Even going back to Makali Aizue's similar type of hit on Scott Wheeldon a few years ago - altho' impact was mainly centred around the chest, Scott still took a portion of Aizue's shoulder on the chin. We all raved about that at the time and similar hits now. I hate to think that we start to follow football's recent craze of red cards, based on potential intent rather than actual outcome.

So the club believed he was guilty and tehre was no point denying it?

I don't believe for a second that the rfl have told Hull that moa was guilty before he turned up at a disciplinary hearing

Me neither. Made up, unsubstantiated nonsense.

I didn't say studs up was an automatic red card I said its an illegal tackle so when it's also reckless it deserves a red card. The shoulder charge is a legal tackle but the precedent seems to now be set that if you make any contact with the head it must have been reckless. If that's the case then just ban the shoulder charge altogether and remove the doubt. I agree with the rest of your post.

I didn't say that it was before they turned up.

Through one mechanism or another it was made clear to the club that Moa would not be let off, and at that point the decision was made to plead guilty in order to minimise the ban.

Believe what you like.

I could believe your made up version of events or I could continue to believe that the club came to their own conclusion that moa had contravened the rules in some way and were trying to mitigate the punishment.

just another video to compare it to
Search frank pritchard on everyones favourite video sharing site, a couple of videos and compilations.

So the following from Hull FC's Head of Communications is all bollox then?

[ii understand they weren't going to let him off. Once this was clear, pleading guilty was obv to ensure just 1 game[/i

[imy understanding that guilty plea meant we wud be pretty much assured of a 1 game ban n nothing more. We compiled strong case tho[/i

And what makes you think I made it up?

Don't judge others by your own standards.