Re: Moa : Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:21 am  

cod'ead wrote:

How can you expect consistency when you are willing to allow due process to be ignored?

How has it been ignored?

Re: Moa : Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:25 am  

Rock God X wrote:

I agree. Everyone should offer their unequivocal support for every decision made by senior officials at the club, as you always have.

Indeed

Re: Moa : Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:26 am  

PAUL M wrote:

How has it been ignored?

He doesn't know, he's just trying to appear as if he knows what's gone on at a closed meeting

Re: Moa : Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:29 am  

PAUL M wrote:

How has it been ignored?

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

[Kosh]

Re: Moa : Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:45 am  

PAUL M wrote:

How has it been ignored?

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.

Re: Moa : Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:49 am  

Kosh wrote:

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?

[Kosh]

Re: Moa : Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:55 am  

Jake the Peg wrote:

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

I'm responding to the discussion started by this post:

PAUL M wrote:

James Clark said to me on twitter last night that the club knew he was not going to be let off so wanted to limit the length of the ban hence the guilty appeal and subsequent strong defence to keep it at one game.

Granted that doesn't specifically state that the club were told what would happen, which is why I used the word 'if' in my response.

Re: Moa : Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:58 am  

Kosh wrote:

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.

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

[Kosh]

Re: Moa : Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:01 am  

Chris28 wrote:

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.

Re: Moa : Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:03 am  

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.