Rather a lot, given it was he, in his new role as supreme Grand Master of officials (or whatever it is) who referred the incident to the disciplinary planel, not the referee involved in the 'incident'. That same referee has also said it was an accident. so yes, it does all seem a little bit fishy.

Exactly. "The contact was unnecessary and avoidable." That's the finding, deal with it.

If he's fit and playing well he's still a class player, we don't have that many of those to choose from so to say it's the end of the road for him at test level is a bit ridiculous to me.

So, this ruling is basically saying that if a referee gets himself badly positioned in the defensive line then a player should not try to tackle the opponent in case he makes contact with the referee in the process. Fair enough.

No. It isn't saying that, at all.

He didn't threaten the ref, didn't throw him to the floor or use any aggressive actions towards him. The ref himself wasn't bothered and hock gets four games. It's rugby league for gods sake, get a grip and let it go.

If sinfield/tomkins/wellins got four games for the same thing there would be so many people defending the player however because hocks got this passed which admitadly he has, people say "same old same old"