RFL explain why Huddersfield Giants star not in clear despite eye gouge verdict

Huddersfield Giants star Taane Milne could still find himself in hot water despite the Super League disciplinary panel not charging him over an alleged eye gouge.

The Match Review Panel did charge six Super League players with three of those (Alec Tuitavake, Chris Satae and Joe Shorrocks) handed bans, however, no action was taken against Milne.

That’s in spite of the Huddersfield Giants centre being placed on report after an allegation was made by Warrington Wolves forward Jordan Crowther.

Milne was carrying the ball out of his own 20 when met by two tacklers, one of whom was Crowther, but when the Wire forward pulled out of the tackle to let the former NRL man play the ball, he was very animated.

He immediately gestured to his eye and approached the referee, making a formal allegation of an eye gouge. The video referee did look at the incident but found no evidence with the same happening at the Match Review Panel, but that’s not quite the end of the matter.

Why Huddersfield Giants man isn’t clear of eye gouge allegations yet

Serious About Rugby League understand that whilst no charge was brought due to ‘insufficient evidence’, clubs do have seven days to submit further information.

That means that Warrington could pursue the charge and offer more information to potentially see Milne punished.

With the game being played at Warrington’s Halliwell Jones Stadium, Wire will certainly have had plenty of cameras in place to record their own footage of the game – footage that perhaps the Match Review Panel did not have access to.

Should they have further evidence or information relating to the alleged eye gouge then they can choose to submit it in a bid to seek a charge.

Milne’s alleged eye gouge wasn’t the only incident placed on report in Round 15 of Super League with Jake Wingield’s crusher-style tackle on Ryan Hall also noted, however, the Match Review Panel cleared the St Helens man.

They found the footage to be ‘inconclusive as to pressure applied and actions of those involved’, meaning no further action was taken against Wingfield.