Trying to save face.

That’s, unfortunately, a problem with the charging system. Players get changed then a hearing takes place. It’s how it works, rightly or wrongly.

Glad to see he has been cleared. I do believe that the right process was followed here as incidents of abuse do need to be taken seriously and investigated (see my previous post on this) in a fair way for both the accuser and the accused. I agree with others that this hasn't necessarily been malicious on the London players part and may have been a case of them mishearing something. However, I am very disappointed with London's reaction to this. I am also very disappointed that there is very little on social media saying the charges have been dropped. They were very quick to report on the allegation and would no doubt be having a field day right now if conclusive evidence had found Ese Ese guilty.

I think overall though, this incident highlights that the way these incidents are handled needs to be looked at as there is a duty of care needed towards the players. Sky should never have revealed on air what the incident was whilst the RFL and MRP need to keep a lid on such charges until after a full investigation has been held (including appeals). They have a responsibility to protect the players whether it's the accuser or the accused. Herman's name was tarnished over this last couple of weeks because of how that was handled and that wasn't right at all.

If you think back to last season Josh Maguire (Warrington) got 8 games I think for calling an opponent a 'spaz' which is a childish offensive word, 8 games though?

The point I'm making is that maybe these NRL guys coming over have a different culture/mentality about what we perceive as acceptable or not.
Herman's obviously said something because Grix alludes to the fact that EseEse didn't think what he'd said was offensive,
Another thing aswell which you lot haven't mentioned, why would London submit evidence against a player that contradicts there original evidence. It doesn't make sense, but London obviously feel the RFL have acted wrongly

badly managed from start to finish but this is the rfl what do you expect?

There wasn't any original evidence though was they? As far as I am aware, the timeline of events is that the ref placed it on report for further investigation and then the MRP couldn't find anything when reviewing the footage so put it in London's hands to supply evidence. London supplied evidence last week which resulted in Ese Ese being charged with an appeal set for tonight. However since then, the RFL have received further evidence (enhanced audio from the referee's mic) that contradicted London's evidence to the point that they felt it exonerated Ese Ese.

London obviously feel aggrieved and are backing their player but what is going to come of them forcing this exactly? What are they hoping to achieve? We don't even know what evidence they submitted do we? But the audio contradicts it whatever it was and contradicted it in such a way that the RFL were happy to drop all charges which makes it sound like it's pretty conclusive. If it is a cultural/mentality/perception thing then I think that just opens a can of worms because anything London say supporting that viewpoint, Hull (and the RFL) can fire back in their direction from the other viewpoint.

Such a strange situation.

I'm guessing that whatever he has said isn't deemed as offensive hence the matter is now closed. If london take any further action they should be seen as bringing the process into disrepute

Despite all the evidence in Ese Ese's favour, it's a suprise to you as Rovers fans, still going against him.

Fan, not fans dave, I only speak for myself.

As for the evidence, I'm just wondering why if the evidence is that concrete, that London are looking to take it further, you've obviously got your black n white glasses on whereas I'm just an interested onlooker.

Surely you should be asking London fans that instead of playing devils advocate on here?

RFL have issued a conclusive statement and that should be the end of it.

But we all see things differently. We feel Hiku should have been banned for his disgusting challenge on Field in the semi. If he had I dare say Peters would have been appealing straight away?

Surely forums are for playing devil's advocate on?

Regarding the Hiku incident, not one Wigan player reacted, that tells me that there really wasn't any head contact, but as you say, we all see things differently.

You can, be you are letting your bias take over here. They are backing their players word, despite there being zero evidence.

We have had this go against us with Griffin that I had to accept even with my supposed black and white glasses on.

No I'm trying not to be biased, I've never said that he's guilty.
I was more interested in the evidence that London put forward, they must have thought it was worth submitting, yet the RFL have classed it as contradictory, obviously London don't think it is

I'd forgotten about the Griffin incident tbh, the RFL are always going to take the word of the ref though,

Anyway I doubt it'll go any further so let's leave it there

Problem as I said in an earlier post is that we don't know what evidence London submitted. For all we know it might have just been a statement from the player in question (HDM say it is Sadiq Adebiyi BTW) with fellow players backing him up. We just don't know. All we do know is that the RFL have audio from the ref's mic that they felt was compelling and contradicted whatever evidence London provided. Without knowing what London provided, we as fans of the sport can't weigh up whether one set of evidence should trump the other so we have to trust the RFL on this one. I know that is difficult at times but they have shown in the past that they take these matters seriously with incidents such as Maguire, Griffin and Clubb so to exonerate Ese Ese completely and not even give him a slap on the wrist... they must feel it was quite convincing. Not only that but I would say that they have absolutely nothing to gain from trying to brush this under the table given the nature of the charge and the public nature it has been carried out.