Re: Moa : Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:49 pm  

I'd be disappointed with SOS. Should be no case to answer.

Re: Moa : Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:50 pm  

bishops finger wrote:

The reaction of the London players tells you how bad a tackle it was.

I thought they seemed to carry on at first, not even stop in expectation of a penalty. It was only Kaufusi who decided the sending off gave him free reign to go head-hunting.

Re: Moa : Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:51 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

I'd be disappointed with SOS. Should be no case to answer.

I'd just be happy that he is available to play against Salford.

without him and O'Carroll we would be looking very light in the pack.

Re: Moa : Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:55 pm  

markrammond wrote:

A grade d offence carries upto a 5 match ban - deliberately striking the ball carrier with an arm, hand or shoulder in the head would constitute this

Moa makes no attempt to effect a tackle and used a dangerous technique outlawed against a ball carrier

He will be back for round 9

Are you saying he deliberately went for the head? Because if you are, you are speaking nonsense.

Re: Moa : Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:57 pm  

seen the replay - he lines him up and hits with the shoulder, but turns away just as rinaldi steps and ducks into it. impact is top of shoulder into head - not an intentional attack on the head as rinaldi has clearly ducked into it. technically yes its a sending off, but there was so much doubt on the field that it should have gone on report. silverwood has had some info from somewhere i'm sure - this is the question that should be asked

also you can hear the hull player (lynch probably) stating that rinaldi has ducked into what would have been an impact on the upper chest/shoulder if rinaldi had stayed upright

overall its more of a non deliberate/accidental/unlucky attack on the head and sending off sufficient will probably result

Re: Moa : Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:01 pm  

inconsistency all weekend, he got the red card from the night before imo

Re: Moa : Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:20 pm  

what annoyed me more was the wild swing the london player took 2 minutes later which didnt even warrant a talking to

Re: Moa : Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:27 pm  

Let me be totally clear here.

I think the red card was harsh, because moa did not do it intentionally, and the london player went to dummy/side step and lowered his body position, hence the contact being around his face.

But for me if there's anything that made up the mind of the t/j or the ref, it would be that Moa was not in control of the tackle, which made it look "reckless". I've watched it over and over again, I don't think our fans screaming OOOHHHHHFFFFF on the reply/big screen helped.

Heart says NFA, head says 2 match ban.

Lewis

Re: Moa : Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:30 pm  

The Bomber IS Back wrote:

Let me be totally clear here.

I think the red card was harsh, because moa did not do it intentionally, and the london player went to dummy/side step and lowered his body shop, hence the contact being around his face.

But for me if there's anything that made up the mind of the t/j or the ref, it would be that Moa was not in control of the tackle, which made it look "reckless". I've watched it over and over again, I don't think our fans screaming OOOHHHHHFFFFF on the reply/big screen helped.

Heart says NFA, head says 2 match ban.

Lewis

I am sure the people at Hull who deal with Disciplinaries will be digging into the archives for Morley tackles and others where they have been put on report for something very similar and then got a caution at worst in front of the panel. Be surprised if he is not playing on Friday, but if he isn't we will deal with it.

Re: Moa : Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:34 pm  

Compare it too Tommy Lees tackle and Moas is never a sending off, yes it was hard and maybe hard, but didn't look intentional. And if it was Broncos players would have reacted, they never.