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.

Where has the ref said it was an accident?

So was Ganson on the Match Review Panel then?

Ellis was injured for a lot of his last season in the NRL (and he also wasnt playing very well) and will have been injured for quite a lot of his first season back in SL, I think he's got to have a big second half of the season to be considered, we are pretty fortunate we have a fair few good forwards, at the moment Ellis doesn't deserve a place.

It goes without saying that Ellis will need to be fit and in-form to be considered. The difference between him and players in SL is the fact that he's played against the best attacking players in the NRL, and will be able to read the play far better than someone who hasn't. It doesn't matter as much for props, but you need your more mobile forwards to see and respond to play as it happens, and if you've rarely (in some cases never) faced quality like Australia you're bound to struggle to read the play, let alone react to it.

The other element having played against the best NRL players brings is being far less likely to play like a rabbit in the headlights. The last two games here in Brisbane, I reckon fully half the GB (as was) side looked like they were awestruck to be on the same field as Australia, and as a result played worse than they could.

Agreed. I actually think the biggest difference between the 2 teams is mentally rather than in physical aspects like speed and skills.

From the disciplinary verdict....

[iCoach (Betts) spoke to official after game and official made no complaint about the incident. In the context of the game there was nothing deliberate or intentional on the part of the player.[/i

If the referee (George Stokes) thought it was anything other than an accidental collision then why did he take absolutely no action whatsoever at the time ? He did not stop play, didn't put it on report, didn't give a penalty or show any cards. Surely if he'd had any doubt he'd have at least put it on report ?

As for Ganson's part, it was he who referred it to the disciplinary panel after watching the video, even though Stokes had written in his match report that there was no intent on Hock's part in the incident.

So the ref didn't say it was an accident, the Widnes coach did.
Do you really think if the ref had reported it as an accident it would have been reviewed by the Panel, charged and found guilty?
I'm still struggling with the Ganson aspect of all this. What capacity was Ganson acting in to refer it to the match review panel? Has it been reported anywhere that Ganson was the one who actually referred it?

Isnt this exactly in-line with the ban Bailey received for making contact with the referee which was ‘unnecessary and avoidable’?

Gary Charlton, Workington's coach, has also said that the referee described it as accidental contact in his match report to the RFL. Hence why no action taken at the time.

I think Ganson's involvement must come from his newly acquired role as Match Officials Technical Director, I assume he must now sit on the Match Review Panel as a function of that role.

I'm a Town fan, and not a big advocate of Hock who does some stupid things on the field, but in the context of this incident I honestly think he has been harshly treated here. It was not a case of the player approaching the referee during a stoppage in play and angrily remonstrating, it was an incident on the run during a passage of play where the referee got mixed up with the Widnes defensive line. In fact you could argue that a more experienced referee would not have got themselves into that position in the first place. From what I saw Hock was attempting to scramble back in defence, there was no intent to collide with the referee, and it was so innocuous that nobody thought anything of it at the time. To get 4 matches for it seems way OTT in that context.

As i say, that sounds almost identical to the case with Ryan Bailey, where Silverwood got himself in the defensive line (and frankly it was embarrasing for him to do so from a Warrington penalty where he controlled the restart) collided with Bailey, did nothing at the time and Bailey got a 3match ban for unnecessary and avoidable contact with the referee.

Whilst I agreed in that case that the contact was minimal, the referee shouldn’t have got himself in that position and it was all a bit of storm in a teacup, at least they are being consistent.

Hock would be in my England team because he has X Factor.

That's why I'd have Tom Briscoe, Rangi Chase, Daryl Clark and Kallum Watkins in there too.