Re: Moon cited : Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:00 pm  

chapylad wrote:

So thats Bowen, Pettybourne and now Farrell who have got away with bans. Who said Leeds runs Redhall.
Think we have copped a few bad ones this year.
If Moon gets a couple of games plus the 60 minutes already served.
I would say we have once again got more than we have deserved.
Probably better to use the shoulder on someone in the 79 th minute in future!!

How do you know it wasn't a 3 game ban with 1 game already served? And surely it's probably better to just not do it?

Re: Moon cited : Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:18 pm  

So, basically, he got pretty much the standard ban for a well prescribed offence in the judiciary, which he clearly committed? No more, no less.

Not much to see here really.

Re: Moon cited : Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:44 pm  

I don't quite understand why Moon didn't submit an EGP but then went to the disciplinary and plead guilty.

Re: Moon cited : Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:20 pm  

Him wrote:

I don't quite understand why Moon didn't submit an EGP but then went to the disciplinary and plead guilty.

My opinion on the shoulder charge. I don't think he committed a shoulder charge. I thought he was unlucky at the time because of that. I thought he should dispute it.

I've just looked at it again on the SL Show. Still don't think it's a shoulder charge.

But high tackle though? Yes, erm, guilty.

Looking at Farrell's incident if they only showed the side view I didn't think there was enough from the side view to ban him. Don't know if they had other angles but if they didn't there wasn't enough in it for me.

Re: Moon cited : Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:33 pm  

I mean look at and dissect the words 'shoulder' and 'charge'

Yes his 'shoulder' makes contact, but there's no 'charge' there, he's stood his ground, more a shoulder block if anything as he's let the attacking run into him and not him running into the attacking with his shoulder.

In that instance probably still worthy of a red card but sending off sufficient for an unnecessary and clumsy attempt to tackle.

Re: Moon cited : Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:00 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

My opinion on the shoulder charge. I don't think he committed a shoulder charge. I thought he was unlucky at the time because of that. I thought he should dispute it.

I've just looked at it again on the SL Show. Still don't think it's a shoulder charge.

But high tackle though? Yes, erm, guilty.

Looking at Farrell's incident if they only showed the side view I didn't think there was enough from the side view to ban him. Don't know if they had other angles but if they didn't there wasn't enough in it for me.

I'd agree with all that and would understand if he'd fought the charge of committing a shoulder charge.

Just not sure why he didn't use the EGP to guarantee a 2 game ban when, by not submitting an EGP but pleading guilty at the disciplinary, he made it certain he'd get at least a 2 game ban but also the possibility of 3 games.
I'd have understood if he'd plead not guilty.

Re: Moon cited : Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:54 pm  

Him wrote:

I'd agree with all that and would understand if he'd fought the charge of committing a shoulder charge.

Just not sure why he didn't use the EGP to guarantee a 2 game ban when, by not submitting an EGP but pleading guilty at the disciplinary, he made it certain he'd get at least a 2 game ban but also the possibility of 3 games.
I'd have understood if he'd plead not guilty.

He could have been fully committed to the not guilty plea. The club could have advised him to cop the early plea and accepted it but he could have refused because he was innocent.

And then they could have looked at it not with the denial of the shoulder charge in mind but merely looking at it as a high tackle. Then I think he sees it with new eyes and holds his hands up.

Since Friday I've been convinced of his innocence and wanted him to get off with it. I was peed off when he was charged and couldn't really believe he was found guilty and accepted the charge. Then looking at it again afterwards and I see it not as a shoulder charge but just look at the challenge and see it as a blatant high challenge and I can't understand why I've not seen it like that before. Just too much stuck on seeing how it isn't a shoulder charge I guess.

Re: Moon cited : Thu Sep 04, 2014 7:41 pm  

A good example of the inconsistency of reffing in the Saints v Wire game.
A player (Monaghan) goes down injured from a tackle, looked high but not given (or played advantage) by the ref.
A stoppage in play after it but, unlike the Moon tackle, NOT looked at by the video ref.

Re: Moon cited : Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:05 pm  

Him wrote:

A good example of the inconsistency of reffing in the Saints v Wire game.
A player (Monaghan) goes down injured from a tackle, looked high but not given (or played advantage) by the ref.
A stoppage in play after it but, unlike the Moon tackle, NOT looked at by the video ref.

Such is life, for the rugby league fan.

Re: Moon cited : Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:08 pm  

TBF near the end of the half when it looked like they messed up who should have possession of the scrum after a double knock on they eventually heard a word from elsewhere that said it's rightfully Warrington head and feed.