Having read the disciplinary rules I cannot see why this wasn't dealt with last week and what allows them to decide to deal with it a whole week later. They are supposed to review the match in full and decide on charges the Monday after the game.



There is something about the opposition being able to complain but have to do so within a tight timeframe.so maybe Widnes complained

Hope we don't lose Moore for a gouging ban...as said already he is the best hooker we have and very influential.





If this is the case it'll be a long ban so Trinity may need to go back to Sio starting at 9 & Howarth off the bench. Playing Sio at 13 then at 9 interchange will increase the likelihood of him getting injured/burnt out. Play Simon back at 13 instead possibly?



Wonder what the evidence is to resurrect this gouging charge is? It must be substantial to justify it?

I see you've got over the virus then

I think it will be from the Ah Van spear tackle. Moore stands up then Heremia runs in and grabs at Moores face and Moore looks like he either grabs back or pushes into Heremias face. TBF it looks like 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.



Is this unprecedented or have there been other occasions of the disciplinary panel going back for a second review?

He was great first time at Hudds when he was on loan from saints. He got an England call up at 18 based on his first stint at the Giants. He was going to be the next big thing- and it certainly looked like him and roby would be a massive force to be reckoned with, he was getting the "big-i-am" and he needed careful mentoring. He went back to saints and they let him get ruined.

It is a bit gutting as he has in my opinion been a major catylist in the up turn in form. His distribution and decision making at dummy half gets us on the front foot giving Miller and Finn space to operate effectively. Unfortunately Howath, although a hard worker with skills of his own, doesn't provide the same platform.



The guy has issues with a fairly chequered history of misdemeanors so I'm not massively surprised he's landed himself in hot water. I just can't see where it's come from and why the RFL have had a second bite at the cherry.

I cant see why either, but think the RFL have set the stall out now, when it comes to re reviewing matches.



wonder if they will be consistent, and re review other games too. I doubt it.



Quite liked MC's comment that we have a player from 1926 in front of the panel this week also.



As we have a crucial run of fixtures, and with the injuries starting to add up, I would look to bring some one in on loan, who can cover 6,7 or 9.

Effectively, he was charged with 4 different things and he only played a quarter of the game, that must be some kind of record ?

I agree that he's added that spark in attack and his return, along with Chester coming in, seemed to make a hell of a difference to the team.

I hope that there is no case to answer but, the fact that it has been brought up, nearly 2 weeks after the game, seems to indicate that there will be a case to answer. Again, this seems an unprecedented action, especially for a player who is already serving a ban.

The one certainty is that he will have copped more from the Widnes players, when he was on the ground, that he can have meted out.

It's a nasty charge, so I hope he didn't do it. I have to say, having seen the replays, I'm at a loss to work out where it's supposed to have happened - he certainly didn't gouge when he pushed Ah Van off Gibson, and in the melee that followed his high tackle on Ah Van, he was on his back for the most part, with Heremaia trying to leather him.



I'm not automatically assuming he's innocent, but the way it's all come out seems a bit fishy.

They say it is in the 19th minute against Heremaia

Which is the incident after the high tackle on Ah Van