The "sending off sufficient" decision for Scott More is yet further evidence of the inconsistent performance of the RFL judiciary.

I would love to hear some form of explanation as to why, just two weeks ago a player received a further suspension for a head high shot, yet this week a player gets "sending off sufficient" for an equally dangerous and aggressive play.

Could it be their respective previous (in Crookes case very recent) disciplinary records?

Not sure, but interestingly Neil Hudgell has tweeted this little gem tonight. "I must have fallen asleep in class. Can't recall when match review panel had power to deem a sending off as sufficient?"

hardaker should be made to apologise to child whilst they shower together

In the same game I can't believe Ratchford has got away with the putting excessive pressure on Abletts spine/neck area. He could of caused some serious injury to him.

he's showing his in depth knowledge of the game there

If he is guilty, Hardaker should be sacked from Leeds without question. No need for that.

Can someone help me here I'm interested in that one surely its the disciplinary committee that decides sending off sufficient not the review pane whose job is I thought to identify that a foul was committed, they have identified that it had, but passed judgement themselves when they should surely have passed it onto the disciplinary panel to decide the sentence? Unless the referee has got it really wrong if they are sent off surely they have at least to appear. Have I got that wrong?

If you have, that makes two of us, because that is my take on it also.

3 game ban in the NRL for an under 20s Origin player doing something similar.

If its any consolation, the disciplinary committee for NRL is just as inconsistent. Mind you, Ben Galea is on the panel

What did Hardaker do?