Bentham's a referee, in his opinion it was a sending off thus he was duly sent off, the panel aren't there to judge referees' they're just a panel what are there to administer an appropriate course of action to the player, and just because they say it's sending off sufficient does not mean that Bentham got it wrong or that Watts was innocent.

He was - but the on the pitch ref was unduly influenced by the VR ... whispering in his ear that it was reckless.
He should not be, and TBH the VR should NOT be allowed to do it. Especially as you don't have the VR in every game.

I also don't agree with the VR getting involved in these decisions.

There's already no consistency based upon the past few weeks. Watts v Wigan; Burrows's head butt; Gaz's sin bin; McCollom on Ellis at Wembley; Wigan on Gaz's neck at Wembley.

Five incidents all with a VR in attendance, but surprisingly only two players asked to leave the field?

Saying it is SOS would suggest the referee got the decision right and Watts isn't innocent.
However, not actually detailing any offence, and directly saying the reason he was sent off didn't happen (I.e. He said the elbow wasn't promoted, which was the reason he was sent off) suggests the referee did get it wrong and Watts is innocent.

They are contradictory. You just can't have them both. It's one or the other.

At the end of the day the VR should only be used for deciding if its a try or not, they should not be deployed as referee in the ear which is clearly what is happening.

If suspected foul play has been committed then use the 'on report' system but Hicks was told to give a red card by the VR (Bentham) and that for me is wrong (regardless of him being right or wrong with his decision) and will destroy the game if this is what is going to happen.

For me I still think the VR is not something we should use in the game unless/until it can be used in all SL games as televised games are clearly not officiated the same as non televised.

... the simplest solution is not to have a VR in any games - let the ref get it right (or wrong) and forget about analysing the game in such minute detail.
The VR (should) only comment on marginal decisions, but their verdicts are often contentious anyway.
And stop replaying fouls on the big screen, all it does is inflame the situation even more.

In other words, treat sky televised games like every other game, not the other way round.

In the NRL every game is televised, over here it's not making it unfair, I could not agree with you more, neither should the VR be involved in anything other than a try or no try decision, whether they were right or wrong depends on what side of the hill you live, what I tried to explain without much success and without bias was that right or wrong Bentham acted on his judgement aided by the VR.

Much as I don't like the VR and would prefer the whole thing was binned off, if it is being used then you might as well make full use of it. If, for example, a player commits a foul that is well away from the play (and doesn't have the SOL get out of jail free pass) and its spotted by the VR then why not penalise and take further action if it is justified? The problem with the Watts decision was a faulty interpretation by the VR rather than a fault in the system.

The problem with the "on report" system is that team that is the victim of the foul play receives little benefit from a player being subsequently banned

All well and good but as others have pointed out, it's not a level playing field. Non tv games can go to the revue panel, scheduled tv games, are revued by idiotic pundits like Cummins who had Watts guilty before charged. Until all games have the same technology, VRs should stick to "try/no try" and how the game should restart.

I agree, apart from perhaps the semi finals and final as decisions in those games don't really have an adverse affect on other games or your league standing

True, to an extent, but the main point (as has been said) is the inconsistency it promotes.A big game today won't have VR, but Catalans v KR did on Friday. The administration of the game leaves a heck of a lot to be desired. The Hetheringtons grip has ruined the sport, and Maurice before them. The game, despite how much we love it, is dying back even further as a minority sport. People like Pearson and Moran will get fed up soon, and we'll be back to clubs being owned by well meaning takeaway owners.

Cummings does indeed talk total balls most of the time but he has nothing to do with the review or disciplinary panel and so is nothing more than an annoying distraction. As I have said already, I would much prefer that we scrapped the video ref entirely but if its there use it to the full. If teams are complaining about foul play being caught immediately then there is a simple way to stop it happening - and its nothing to do with the presence of live TV.

Anyway to make it clear. No to the VR, adds nothing but 20 minutes to a game's finishing time and more often than not provides no definitive answer to the genuine 50-50 calls. Yes to 2 refs which will do far more to improve the quality of decision making by the officials as they aren't getting the information overload refs currently endure.

You do realise TV pundits have no influence on the actual field that day, don't you?

Of course, silly. Trying to make the point that pundits give an opinion at the time of the offence and can and have influenced, decision making at the following hearings. I think Watts was unfortunate to have been given a ban, earlier in the season, Catalan? for the spear tackle, yes he lifted the legs but moved away before the player was tipped. Not deliberate or maliscious, but Sky pundits showed it again and again and had him guilty before he was charged, which probably influenced the panel.

No but they do influence the casual viewer or the those who aren't knowledgeable to form their own opinion. Whilst this doesn't directly influence the disciplinary it certainly doesn't help the game. Cummins in particular will always side against Hull even to the point of contradicting himself from earlier in the same match, if he's challenged he arrogantly just asserts his point as if he's the only one who's opinion matters. Why Sky employ him is beyond me. I can just about tolerate the others but his agenda is so obvious it's embarrassing.