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.

So the ref says its accidental in his match report but nasty Mr Ganson has decided differently and persuaded not only the match review panel to charge Hock but also the Tribunal to find him guilty, all despite the refs report that it was accidental. Can anyone actually show me how Ganson is involved in this? I've seen nothing that links him to this at all yet.
As Smokey pointed out, Bailey got 3 games, Hock got 4. Sounds about right to me, but even if it was still accidental I still don't see how it amounts to a Steve Ganson inspired plot.

So Widnes have lost one of their best players on a nothing charge for 4 games in the name of consistency.

You can see how ridiculous that is right?

Depends if the contact was accidental or deliberate. The match review panel and operational rules tribunal think it was deliberate.
But that is still irrelevant from it being merely a figment of Steve Ganson's imagination.

The RFL
Hearing conducted by Skype with Head Coach Dennis Betts and player.
Player pleads not guilty to deliberate contact with the Official.
Mr Betts points out there were no deliberate contact with the referee.
The player was chasing back and accidentally caught the Official as he was running back.
It was raining heavily and conditions underfoot were poor and it was hard to change direction.
Player does not lift his arms up he is scrambling back in defence and trying to get to the ball as quickly as possible.
Coach 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.


Aggravating Factors :
Previous record for a similar offence.


Reasons for Decision
In deciding the appropriate sanction the tribunal take into account the players previous disciplinary history, two cases of which involved conduct towards match officials.
The tribunal are satisfied the player had no intention to cause injury to the Official.
The contact was unnecessary and avoidable. Officials have to be protected and the tribunal feel this is a serious matter.
Taking into account all the circumstances the tribunal feel that a 4 match suspension and £300 fine are appropriate.

I think the dispute is arising because the fans and Betts seem to be arguing that Hocks contact wasn’t deliberate, the disciplinary are making pretty clear that they will punish contact which isn’t deliberate if it is avoidable and unnecessary. The rules as they are and as they are applied are putting a duty on the players to avoid contact where possible.

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"