Interesting how a player swearing at a referee becomes an issue due to the bias of a referee.

I would venture that under no circumstances should a player swear at a referee for two reasons;
1. They dont tend to change their decisions so swearing will only make it worse, and
2. You shouldn't do it anyway.

Also though, I dont believe any referee, or indeed any person goes to work to do a bad job. To say Hicks, or anyone, is intentially bias seems like sour grapes.

with your first points i agree as i said hock should not have done it
on your second point i dont agree certain refs have there fav teams and are less picky with them today we had benthem in the middle a joy to watch a game were both sides were treated the same you could tell that both set of players respected him as well as the fans despite a few pens going against us. this is not just a widnes thing mr hicks and childs are allways doing it IF your team is not the flavour of the week then watch you will get batterd in the first half by pens then in the second he will even it up but give you the pens were it does not gain you much they are good at it but do it they do.

Ask McDermott, he seems to believe London have been given the least Penalties over the last few years and Catalans the most.

That doesn't mean the refs are biased.

Re the thread topic -
Hock shouldn't have abused the ref, Betts shouldn't have defended him in the way he did. Betts reaction merely confirms the existence of a wider problem prevalent in all levels of rugby league. That of unnecessary aggression. I'm all for aggression in play (at pro level) but in the form of a tackle or a run or even the occasional flare-up. But swearing at a ref at pro level is unnecessary, and there is a problem with excessive swearing from crowds and at major events there is a problem with drunken fans. Both also unnecessary.
The problems however are far worse at amateur level. The fights involving players or spectators, the swearing from players, coaches and spectators, the abuse of the ref from players, coaches and spectators, drunken spectators often other age groups or teams from the same club.
All unnecessary and all contribute to an atmosphere of aggression and intimidation.

I don't think the issues at pro level are THAT bad but we shouldn't get complacent over them. At amateur level it's just depressing.

As for Hock compared to Hartley, whilst it seems a big discrepancy between the 2 bans I don't think the 2 are that easily compared. As I understand it Hock swore at the ref whilst Hartley swore and, more importantly, called him a cheat. Whilst 11 weeks compared to 1 game seems a big difference, it was the end of Hartleys domestic season anyway so he's only missed whatever Lions games he may have been involved in.

You are being trolled. This guy posts nothing but drivel and he has never been on our board.

Swearing happens on the pitch when aggressive men are involved in physical combat. No ref will give a penalty for expletives. What is different is when a player swears directly at the referee. Not because the referees are delicate souls. But because the referee is the only person standing between a beautiful game of controlled aggression, and an ugly and dangerous mass brawl. Until you've reffed a bad-tempered game, you can have little appreciation for just how close to criminal violence a RL game can get. RL could simply not survive if players were allowed to get up to a fraction of the sort of ref-intimidation and abuse which occurs in soccer. The matches would become dangerous. That's why Hock had to go, and rightly so.

Even if the ref gets a decision wrong, a player is NEVER justified in swearing at them. Whether you agree with the ref's decisions or not, it is far, far better to swallow your criticism than to undermine the ref's authority on the pitch. Because once that goes, it gets very ugly, very fast.