I've read it. They do not say the elbow was not raised, because of course it was. As anyone can see the arm moves away from Watts' body and into MM's jaw. The RFL decision was to charge Watts and to consider the sending off sufficient, which clearly supports the on field decision, you know, the opposite of proving it wrong. I understood this, it seems you did not, despite it not being joined up writing, as you say. Thanks for the laugh though. Perhaps next time you want to try and be a smart you'll make sure you understand what you're talking about before insinuating someone else doesn't.

True, to an extent, but the main point (as has been said) is the inconsistency it promotes.A big game today won't have VR, but Catalans v KR did on Friday. The administration of the game leaves a heck of a lot to be desired. The Hetheringtons grip has ruined the sport, and Maurice before them. The game, despite how much we love it, is dying back even further as a minority sport. People like Pearson and Moran will get fed up soon, and we'll be back to clubs being owned by well meaning takeaway owners.

Cummings does indeed talk total balls most of the time but he has nothing to do with the review or disciplinary panel and so is nothing more than an annoying distraction. As I have said already, I would much prefer that we scrapped the video ref entirely but if its there use it to the full. If teams are complaining about foul play being caught immediately then there is a simple way to stop it happening - and its nothing to do with the presence of live TV.

Anyway to make it clear. No to the VR, adds nothing but 20 minutes to a game's finishing time and more often than not provides no definitive answer to the genuine 50-50 calls. Yes to 2 refs which will do far more to improve the quality of decision making by the officials as they aren't getting the information overload refs currently endure.

You do realise TV pundits have no influence on the actual field that day, don't you?

Of course, silly. Trying to make the point that pundits give an opinion at the time of the offence and can and have influenced, decision making at the following hearings. I think Watts was unfortunate to have been given a ban, earlier in the season, Catalan? for the spear tackle, yes he lifted the legs but moved away before the player was tipped. Not deliberate or maliscious, but Sky pundits showed it again and again and had him guilty before he was charged, which probably influenced the panel.

No but they do influence the casual viewer or the those who aren't knowledgeable to form their own opinion. Whilst this doesn't directly influence the disciplinary it certainly doesn't help the game. Cummins in particular will always side against Hull even to the point of contradicting himself from earlier in the same match, if he's challenged he arrogantly just asserts his point as if he's the only one who's opinion matters. Why Sky employ him is beyond me. I can just about tolerate the others but his agenda is so obvious it's embarrassing.