On the BBC website match report Rob Powell said that he didn't think it should have been a red card. It looked to me as if Siverwood was about to give a penalty and warn Moa when someone had a word in his ear.

Had it been Bailey on Yeaman all the FC fans would be baying for a red card and a two match ban, just have to see what the panel decide.

Right, I come in peace and genuinely have no care either way, I am not a fan of London, Rinaldi, Moa or Hull, folks on other forums if nothing else ought to at least say I am usually balanced and considered!

initially it looked a great shot. Then I saw direct contact with the head and not in an attempted tackle. No opinion or feelings, I think we would all agree they are facts - not intentional, but direct contact with the head.

We have a great game and the powers that be DO have a responsibility to protect the assets. I think that looking at the laws of the game, as a neutral it was reckless contact with the head. I saw it to be similar to feet off the ground tackles in football or tackles from behind in that you can't use "I got the ball as an excuse" because it is likely to cause injury to opponents. It was reckless contact with the head, if not deliberate. I think both games have moved on from allowing those particular offences to pass unchallenged for protection of all players.

All of that said, the frustration lies in the consistency of decisions, we have all seen things like this go unpunished wherein lies the problem. But that doesn’t make it right or mean this should have been allowed to stand. If I were sitting on the panel for this I would give one extra game suspension, no fine as there seemed no malicious intent, but if we are going to protect our assets, then we need to change the game, but CONSISTENTLY!

In deciding whether the challenge was reckless, two simple questions have to be asked:

1) If Rinaldi hadn't dipped/stooped, would the tackle have been legal?

2) Was there sufficient time between Rinaldi's change of direction and the impact for Moa to have been able to pull out of the challenge?

The answers, in my opinion, are 'yes' and 'no', respectively.

If you have different answers, please enlighten us as to why, but you can't give the same answers and still say it was reckless.

Letter sent to League Express :

Dear Sirs,

I'm writing to express my disbelief and frustration with the sending off of Sam Moa in the Hull FC game v London on 19.2.

There has been some discussion as to whether the shoulder charge should be made illegal as it was in Rugby Union. However, at present if remains legal in our game and Sam should therefore not even have been penalised never mind sent off! It is not up to the match officials to unilaterally change the rules half way through a game. The reaction of the players of both sides indicated they considered it to be a legal 'hit' as the London players did not remonstrate with Sam and his team-mates congratulated him on a brilliant hit.

My view is supported by the outcome of a similar incident in 2010 when Luke Burgess of Leeds sustained a broken jaw following a shoulder charge by Jonathon Walker of Castleford. No action was taken against Walker either during the game or subsequently. What has changed since?

Yours Faithfully

Lets just do away with tackling and have done with it, lets play touch rugby, ridicuolous decision from a ref who totally ruined the game as a spectacle for me with his endless whistling.
Worst of all letting the deliberate swinging arm go unpunished from London 2 mins after the Moa incident!

Direct impact to the head is incorrect imo and in that lies the problem. How can Moa can be accountable for Rinaldi moving is beyond me, if he is were do you draw the line? As others have alluded to if it was an illegal shot then why have no players rushed in to have there 2 pennies worth whilst also go to pat him on the back as he's laeving the field, they no a legal and illegal hit better then anyone.

There was no intention to impact on Rinaldis head imo and it would of been interesting to see what decision would of been given when Kaufusi (?) decided to steam roll in a full belt on our next set if he had connected.

If your going along the road of direct impact to the head been the problem then Tommy Lee and Kevin Brown want the book throwing at them after their antics in Saturdays game. Consistency is the major problem i've seen much worse escape any punishment over the years and this season included.

I was surprised he didn't take the usual cop out of putting it on report to be honest. IMO until putting it on report comes with an automatic yellow card and also a review of the incident after the game to deter referees of growing a pair then inconsistency will continue to be an issue.

Silverwood was shocking yesterday not just for Hull but also London, the game couldn't flow at all.

Correct me if iam wrong but I was under the impression the outlawing of high tackles was brought in to protect players from serious head injuries and I was also under the impression any shot to the head is illegal,I dont think that moa intended to shoulder charge rinaldi in the head,but unfortunately thats where it finished up. If rinaldi had done that to say houghton what we have said.Iam sure the verdict will be sending off sufficient.

But if it was unintentional, why should he have seen red? Plenty of intentional high tackles are punished with nothing more severe than a penalty. The ref has looked at the outcome rather than the challenge itself, and has been influenced by events in the Hudds/Wire game.

For me that's the crux of it. If Rinaldi had lost the ball then got up, albeit slightly groggy, it would have been play on.

I'm looking forward too, to video refs calling for action against high shots at every future game.

SOS sets a precident for the future that any tackle legal/illegal ending up with a headinjury intentional/unintentinal will be a red card. That will change our game completely.

The only outcome can be no case to answer.

Silverwood had a very poor game and this was a catastrophic error.

Just to add to this discussion.

Does anyone think Moa deliberately attempted to attack the head?

Can accidental contact with the head ever be a red card if using a tackle technique that is legal?

If Moa deliberately went for his head then red card is justified. But surely that means that any deliberate contact with the head is a red card?

If it was accidental and the tackle technique is a valid one does that mean that any accidental contact with the head is now a red card?

Does the fact it was an aggressive hit make any difference? Should the fact Rinaldi was knocked out come into it? If exactly the same contact happened but it didn't knock the player out is it still a red card?

For me Moa used a legal tackle technique with the intention of dominating a tackle and hopefully dislodging the ball. Their was no intent to attack the head and it could be reasonably assumed that the chance of contact to the head was no greater than normal. The result of the tackle doesn't change any of that IMO.

Lots of high tackles are unintentional,when say a halfback is too quick for a forward and they hang an arm out,but if its high,its illegal.! Tommy lee's tackle was an absolute disgrace against warry on saturday,bentham had a perfect view of it and bottled it. That was a sending off,but when are refs going to start singing from the same hymn sheet.?

I'm thinking back to a St Helen's vs Rhinos game, where Ryan Bailey went in with the shoulder, connected, and momentum took his shoulder into the players face "can't remember who though" this tackle went unpunished even with the Saints player leaving with a bloody nose. The Moa tackle is very similar, and the game was rightfully stopped due to an injured player, but there is noway it was a sending off! If that's a sending off, half the nrl players would be banned week in week out!!