I thought I read earlier in the season there was going to be a VR at all SL games next season, if so it would be an ideal time to bring it in.

I agree. This is something that bothers me about the plan to have two refs on the field. I'd much rather see video refs at every game.

i have no problem with justice being served up at a later date - in days gone by incidents like this would have seen the offender get away with it. i was more bothered about the fact we should have had a penalty and relieving kick with player put on report (pretty sure they can do this via the replay in the NRL). probabaly requires the video ref at all games over here first, as some posters have suggested

Reel it in a bit. There is no way you can prove intent unless you have Hauraki there willing to admit it.

Also, I know these are hard lads, but I don't think for one second that a player would deliberately knee a prone player at the base of the skull as that could potentially kill the victim.

Or are you suggesting this incident was attempted murder?

When did you stop being a Hullfc fan, ? It was a deliberate foul, as seen quite clearly on the
slow-mo, play back, so how much more proof do you need. Your last remark. Just silly, !!

Careless for me & probably the right length of ban.

Was it intentional? I don't think it was. pretty pointless arguing about it though.

I have never stopped being a Hull FC fan, but I recognise a ridiculous comment when a see one. This makes your opening remark quite silly.

my last comment was not silly at all. A strike to the base of the skull / top of the neck could quite easily kill someone. Putting the words Deliberately / intentionally would add a whole new element to the seriousness of any incident.

Hauraki was reckless and should have taken more consideration to his position and those within his immediate area.

There is no proof of intent.

Intent was there, without question. He admitted it in his guilty plea.

Your last sentence doesn't warrant a response.

I think you will find he pleads guilty to reckless behaviour, not intent which he certainly doesn't appear to admit. Any arguments about his degree of responsibility lie with the disciplinary panel that charged him and we know how we can rely upon them.

Nope. He was charged with reckless behaviour, so all he's admitted to is being reckless.

That is so obvious yet some people still don't seem to get it.

To use their logic, if you plead guilty to manslaughter you're admitting you committed murder.

Wilf states in his Weekly post that a head butt can not kill

Early guilty plea was for recklessness. at no point is the word deliberate or intentional in the charge.

My previous last sentence is fully justified if intent could be proved.

You dont appear to have enough knowledge of the meaning of Murder and manslaughter. You certainly dont have a great deal of understanding of the legal system to use that as a comparison.