I think Hock has performed very well for England/GB in the past, whereas Ellis has been a huge disappointment.

Hock would be on the bench every time for me.

Ellis has been a consistent standout performer for a long spell in the NRL and a man who stands out in NRL company is a shoo-in for England if fit.

If you want impact off the bench then what better than Gareth Hock and George Burgess?

I'm glad someone else has said this about Ellis. I don't watch the NRL and seriously wondered why he was still getting picked based on when I saw him in internationals.

Don't see why some are thinking of excluding great players because they've got a bit of a reputation.

I remember New Zealand winning the last world cup with Fa'alogo, Luke, Blair, Matai and Smith in the squad. Where as the Aussies, who were also in the final, had Gallen and Watmough on the cards... back when they were proper filthy players at that.

If anything the England squad has lacked a bit of spice these last few years. We've steadily improved no doubt about it, but there's been too many times where the squad, despite having some of the best forwards in the world playing, has looked soft and allowed themselves to be emasculated by more aggressive sides.

It doesn't fill me with confidence if worthy players are going to be omitted from the team as we're so intimidated by the quality of the opposition that we think a penalty or two is going to guarantee a loss. Is that the attitude to have? Seems very insecure and puts the opposition on a giant pedestal.

Appreciate the need for professionalism, but at the same time I think we can afford to have at least one certified nutter in our outfit to get under the opposition skin. Hock could be a bad move, it could also be genius as he's one of those players who can bait the opposition into doing something daft, don't underestimate that side of it. He's got that Bailey like quality imo.

Well Australia and New South Wales don't seem to agree. You'd be hard pressed to find a player in the modern game with a track record as bad as Sir Paul Gallen, but you recognise his quality and you include him in spite of his capacity for low acts.

As for cowardly acts. I think I remember James Graham trying to bite a players ear off... Hmm.

If elbowing people in the face was reason enough to exclude a player then half the guys in the Aus and NZ squads would be out of a job.

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.