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.