The revised ban is still an appalling farce. But the 'independent' review panel was never going to fully overturn the decision of the first panel.

Its abysmal and blatant bias at all levels of the disciplinary. Been the same for years but now they aren't even trying to hide it. The only hope to get something done would be all the clubs getting together as one and demanding changes. But I doubt that will happen.

How many games did Westwood get banned for his assault on Sutcliffe? Just curious how his ended up compared to Watts'.

4 I think but may be wrong

Just to highlight the total inconsistency of the whole process, I watched the Wakefield v Wigan match on easter Monday while listening to Hull's match away at Leigh when Gelling replicated Watt's dangerous throw against Catalans. I actually said to my son, "let's see if that gets a four match ban" as it was almost exactly the same offence. Gelling got 10 minutes in the bin just as Watts had done. You guessed it, Gelling received one match compared to Watts' 4 matches. Try telling anyone not visually impaired there is no bias from the RFL disciplinary committee.

Its a noble sentiment but unfortunately it won't work. The 2 most vocal critics of the disciplinary process have probably been Koukash and the dwarf from the East of the city and a fat lot of good it has done them. If anything it has made it worse for their clubs, especially Salford whose players always seem to get the maximum possible. Now I realise that there are other issues involved behind their complaints and Salford have employed some notoriously ill disciplined players but although it sounds defeatist its very difficult to beat the system. When Pearson first took over he was pretty vocal about the RFLs failings and got shot down fairly quickly so he's been much more circumspect since then.

I'm at a loss what to do. Speaking out doesn't work - if anything it can be negative. Saying nothing at all just allows the corrupt Wigan-Leeds axis to continue their institutionalised bias. I would agree that the more outrageous cases like the Watts one need highlighting as there is some pretty strong evidence on record and in the public domain and that's all we can probably do, keep chipping away.

Onto another issue from this case regarding Hallas on the panel I was a bit mystified by some of the complaints on this. I have no idea what his current feelings towards Hull FC are - either positive or negative - so unless someone has decent evidence on this I wouldn't read too much into it. However it does show a major failing of the system where ex players are sitting in judgement on individuals from their former clubs. No matter how impartial they may be they are wide open to conflict of interest accusations. A couple of weeks ago Hock was suspended for abusing a ref (again) and on that panel was former Leigh legend Neil Turley. Once again no evidence of any real wrongdoing but why the unnecessary conflict? Surely the RFL isn't so penny pinching that they can't put an extra ex player on call (as these are rotated anyway) so that when the former club connection arises that person can stand down for that case. Then again perhaps I'm making the ridiculous assumption that they are interested in a fair disciplinary process for all.

Agree with all of that - good reasoned post. In the cold light of day, when the emotion of the injustice to Wattsy has subsided a tad, then we as fans should keep this issue in the spotlight. When we see such blatant injustice (and even when we see it to other teams' players) we should highlight it on any forum we can - just like the Cas fans who have posted on this thread.