This question has two sides to it.
 
The example in question is not really about refs decisions that do not match his interpretations, as with the speed of the game, these things can and do get missed.
 
It's more to do with the Video ref that has time and different views in order to make the right decision (or not).
 
The case in point was in the Rovers vs Hull match on Thursday night.
 
We have a player tackled over the line with two men in attendance and the ball comes free. After several looks, Eddie Hemmings asks Stuart what he thinks and Mr Cummins says that it look like the ball was stripped and needs to be a penalty to Rovers.
 
The VR then goes on to give the opposite (and incorrect) decision, and Cummins states that he believes that they have got it wrong.
 
1. Is it right for Stuart to make these comments and possibly continue to fan the flames of those who believe all the refs in this country are rubbish. It also makes it obvious that they are not training the refs very well.
 
2. Should he be excluded from stating anything on live TV and therefore avoid further controversy?
 
3. Sack Ganson over his continued influence in training the refs (a bit tongue in cheek but also with a possible element of truth).
 

The fact that a commentator knows the rules better than the referees shouldn't be a reason to sack the commentator.

Now he only works for Sky he can pass any comment he likes on decisions made by the officials. For me he's showing how many decisions are actually given wrongly.

Have I missed something? I thought Stuart was still the head of referees at the RFL?

Yes. He stepped down over 12 months ago and Jon Sharpe is now head of the motch officials dept.

I just think it is poor to have him on the commentary team anyway! Having an ex ref on the team just encourages them to pick apart every decision rather than focus on the rugby.

In the NRL - even if a poor decision is made, it is forgotten about and they move on but we seem to just keep reiterating the same points

i think you are wrong to assume that just because the VR disagrees with Cummins, their decision is wrong. It is possible that Cummins and the VR just have a different view of the incident.

Agree with the above. Far too much focus is placed on the match officials in Super League, with intense scrutiny of the most minute of incidents.

And for what? It doesn't change the outcome, it doesn't improve refereeing standards and it does little to encourage others to take up the whistle.

I understand why Sky have brought Cummings on board - they are merely playing to an audience that wants to scrutinise every single referee decision - but it is putting the emphasis on the wrong people. Without wishing to reopen a completely seperate debate, Phil Bentham isn't the reason Huddersfield have this weekend off - Brett Ferres is - yet it is Bentham who is receiving vitrolic abuse on the internet.

I quite like having Cummins on the commentary, he often brings a bit of sense and reason compared to tweedle dumb and tweedle dee.

The problem with any rule that is open to interpretation is different people will view it differently so naturally he is sometimes going to have a different view to the officials.

I dislike it simply because it encourages more debate about every decision in the commentary box,of which there was already too much of imo.I want to hear more of the game being called as it happens, not still going on about a possible knock on 5 minutes after it happened!

I'm beginning to think there are two NRL Premierships because the one I watch often seems different to what is described with rose tinted glasses on here!

I wish they'd get rid of him tbh. Every contentious decision, Eddie asks for his opinion.

Its a fast game, mistakes are made, but to have their former boss pick each error apart does undermine the refs, and the fans' view of the refs. Whether we think the refs are crap or not, that's not the right thing to be doing.

Especially when the RFL don't like people picking apart their disciplinary decisions

To be fair he defends and agrees with the ref on the vast majority of decisions. He also often explains the decision on behalf of the ref to Eddie and Stevo correcting them when they try and create controversy far more often than creatin the controversy himself.

Whilst I would agree that it isn't good to dwell on our emphasise poor decisions it isn't great to brush them under the carpet either. I know a few casual viewers and football fans who appreciate Cummins' input, and I can see why. Personally I think having an ex ref on the panel is a good idea and adds another dimension to the commentary, just like having ex players does.

This. Without him the two muppets would be left peddling their ignorance unchecked.