The problem here as stated a number of times and that you have so far failed to answer is why there were so many more innocuous incidents looked at this week than in previous weeks where there was a full round of games.
If the MRP were consistent in their review process and treated all games like those last week (when they only had 2 or 3 to review) then every game would throw up between 10 and 20 incidents for them to rule on and clubs would be getting players banned left, right and centre.
In reality, half of the incidents flagged this week would not even have merited a view if they had 6 games to review not 3.

That's where the inconsistency lies IMO

Facts are attendances are falling year on year, and the on field product has become so dull that even Sky don’t want to pay as much as they used to now.

If things carry on the way they are, with clubs taking the p*** with postponing games and the MRP with their daft suspensions I won’t be watching next year.

But you haven't really brought any facts. You've brought an opinion, which you're entitled to hold, but opinions aren't facts.

You disagree with MC's statement. Fine. I respect that. But MC will know much more about the problems with the game and those who run it, so if he is saying these things, they are not without foundation.

The game needs reform, but off the pitch and on high. The RFL rely on blind loyalty. The problem they will have is that over the last year, people have found other things to do, or got out of the habit. They need to win them back. Banning players for innocuous challenges because of strict adherence to tick-box disciplinary codes will not put bums back on the seats, and the RFL might have to work harder than they think.

I know how laws work, and I know when they work properly. The more prescriptive, the more detailed, the more unjustly they work. Rules that are more general in nature, that can be defined based around general principles and goals, allow flexibility and allow everything to be judged on their actual merit, rather than, "contact after the ball has been released is a category X, which means a ban of X".

We're in the entertainment business. We're not in the rule-making business.

Spot on.

Just seen the hampshire incident on face book...wow in effect by getting a ban the oanel are saying he should of been sent off well if players get sent off for that we may end up with 2 v 2 .its nothing short of disgusting

It's what I alluded to earlier, when reviewing it back the panel should consider if it was a sending off offence before issuing a ban.