As I'm sure you'll remember, in March, Gareth Hock was banned for one game for 'foul and abusive language'. No doubt this is a very cheap ban and Betts was clearly annoyed at this decision. However, I remember reading on SSN that he believed that the decision was 'a joke', that a player should not be 'sent off for swearing' and questioned if we were playing in a 'schoolyard'.

Personally I thought these were very poor comments from a man such as Betts. Yes, in the heat of a game emotions get overcharged and things are said. However, at what point is it ever acceptable to swear at an official like that? The fact that Betts not only supported Hock (well, what else would you expect him to do?) but that he actually verbally attacked Mr Hicks himself in the media showed a total disregard for the work the RFL have done for many years to promote RL as a family game suitable for all.

With that in mind it was interesting to see the recent decision in RU to ban Dylan Hartley for 11 games for the similar offence of 'verbally abusing a referee'. To be clear, there are differences as Hartley accused the referee of cheating as he swore at him. However, nobody in the sport, not even his own coach, came out to defend him. They all knew what he did was wrong and should be punished.

As a parent with young children I am happy for them to see the physical nature of our sport because it shows how fit and how competitive these guys are. I also prefer the atmosphere to that of football and know that RL is much much safer in terms of crowd trouble and general antisocial behaviour. What I am not happy is for me kids to think that swearing at someone in authority is acceptable.

RL is not blessed with legions of fans around the world like other sports and we need to concentrate on keeping those we have, If we were to start losing whole families that would be a serious issue for the sport.

So to Mr Betts and those who think like him I ask you to think about the long-term implications of your words.

To play devils advocate do you think families are turned off from soccer due to the ridiculous antics of soccer players towards refs?

There are many reasons families may not follow RL, a commentator disagreeing with a ruling bodies decision is hardly one of them!

Yes.

All parts of the sport of RL have a responsibility to show respect to all the other parts of the game, be that the RFL, club owners/administrators,Coaches,players and fans

It is that simple

Agreed.

Whilst I'd immediately accept the majority would prefer it not to happen, the evidence suggests it has little, or no, effect on that sport's ability to attract customers or sponsors.

Coaching a junior RL team and running the junior section, it was frequently mentioned by parents and even kids as a reason they were not involved in soccer.

you have to take the hock thing into context mr hicks has previous of this from the championship days he allways batters widnes in the penelty count in that game he did the same thing and hock lost it with him as he came from pies he is not used to it so yes we do need to respect the refs but in the same vain the refs have to be impartial and some of them are better than others at doing it
p.s hicks does ref us better on tv due to more scrutany from the pundits

So you are blaming the refs?

I assume I'm being trolled, but seriously? He was top 5 for giving away penalties in the league last year with Wigan too, it's part of his game...

So it's Hicks fault that Hock swore???

I think you'll find that our Gaz has a fair bit of previous with several refs and is quite used to being penalised.

i am not defending hock i am defending what betts said and he was right to say it. mr hicks and childs are complete tools as far as i can see they have their fav teams and ref the games accordingly there is a BIG difference in giving a pen on the first in your own half to giving one to the other side on the last in there own 40 on paper they balance out but on the pitch they give yards plus another full set to defend and they do it time and time again which fustrates players hence when you have one like hock will result in a rush of blood. respect goes both ways that is why the likes of silverwood and bentham get the best games as they are fair and most importantly the are seen to be fair where the other 2 just do which ever team they feel they want to on that day.

So you are blaming the ref

for hock no for the cotinual bias against certain teams yes respect is earnd and mr hicks&childs do not deserve it

Give me proof, actual proof, that the refs are biased for or against a certain team, then I might take your comments seriously.

The fact that sometimes you have decisions go against you, is not proof that the refs are out to get you.

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.