I know a player who was sine die for gouging and rightly so.....not sure why there should be any difference for professionals in fact it could be argued they should know better and act as role models for the game.

Now I love a bit of biff in the game but Hock is a cheap shot thug, gouged then punched as the player was getting up...Dirty scum bag 8 matches is not enough 8 years would be better!

The amateur game has the same zero tollerance on man-handling the officials, and Hock got away with that one.

No matter who the player is, or who he plays for, or even how deliberate his actions, an example must be made. The last thing we want is to get into a situation where more eye contact is seen because somebody got off lightly.

Rubbish, just watched it again. You can see his grubby fingers searching for the eye sockets to get leverage.

Its like CSI Wilderspool on here

The key question is was Hock deliberately trying to place his fingers into Harrison’s eyes to do damage? My feeling is that he was pulling at his face rather than gauging

Was it dirty, stupid, reckless and dangerous – absolutely. He should get a top end ban of 6-8 games. But that action is different to somebody deliberately pushing his fingers into somebody’s eyes in order to do serious damage

Maybe I’m being naive and just cannot accept that anybody would deliberately try to gouge an opponent (I’m well aware it happens of course)

If he did deliberately gouge Harrison I would have no hesitation in banning him for life... a far more serious offence than taking a recreational drug in my opinion

Don't come on here talking utter sense. The Clampetts will be waving their pitchforks again.

Howell got 6 for biting, it should be considerable more, we'll see.

I couldn't believe that a professional Rugby League player would be stupid enough to take cocaine the day before a game. Gareth Hock showed be different but I know what you mean.

6-8 games is enough. It's getting on for 1/3 of a regular season if he gets the harsher ban.

I'd give him 8. There are doubts that it was a premeditated attack, but everyone has eyes on the front of their heads and players have a responsibilty to fellow players. Big black mark on his disciplinary sheet aswell for consideration during any future visits to the disciplinary board.

8 matches for gouging, plus one for striking (because gouging wasn't enough for Mr Hock)

Why do people think that Hock should get 8 games when, as I've already posted on this thread, another player was found guilty of the same offence last season and received a 4 match ban ?

I don't know about Hock, but my fingers are pretty sensitive. If I stand behind someone and place my hand over their face the two big sockets that I can feel tend to indicate that my fingers are over their eyes.

when is the hearing? cant wait to read the wording around his plea....

[iThe player explained about the techniques that they are coached and that they have individual reviews of opponents. They were briefed that Harrison has recently had a bad ear injury. The Intention was to tackle the player without causing any further damage to the players ear. During the tackle, the player (harrison) thrust his eyeballs out towards the fingers of Gareth Hock, creating the impression of gouging. The player was infact trying to protect the ear in the tackle.

Mr Maguire reiterated that Hock's priority was to prevent any further damage to the ear. Mr Maguire encourages his players to ensure the safety of opponents and in this instance Hock ensured that harrison's ear was OK. Shaun Wane also added that there was no "undue pressure on the eyeballs".[/i

Probably because bans of 1-2 games are the norm, 4 game ban is considered very serious, the obviously feel over 8 is too severe for potentially causing permanent eye damage and believe such a ban would impact England in the tri -nations. It would also seem they deem taking a recreational drug far more serious than attempting to insert your fingers into somebody's eye sockets.

Those that have suggested his actions were not deliberate take another look, after initial contact with the eyes sockets he did not remove his hand if anything it is after that point his fingers appear to probe the eye socket. Do not believe his actions were pre-meditated but I do think they were deliberate and was fully aware of what he was doing.

I hope the panel give him a load of lines.....


oh wait

Yes, but a London Skolars player was found guilty of deliberate eye gouging and got a 4 game ban so why should Hock get 8 ? We all talk about consistency in the game so surely the disciplinary should be consistent here. The fact that the initial ban for the Skolars player could be considered light is another matter, but the fact is that it set a precedent. Or are SL players eyes more sensitive than those of a Championship 1 player ?

you get a reducted punishment if you have a previously good disciplinary record, Hock has a terrible record so should get a heavy punishment if found guilty

the panel will take into account his previous record.

Just been on BBC GMR he is out for rest of the season. Fool.

5 games for both offences.... ends his season so its probably enough.

6 for Howell though, compared to 5, hmm.

I think the minimum ban is VERY lenient.
I always though previous record influenced the length of the ban.
27/04/08 - 1 match ban for punching.
05/07/08 - 5 match ban for manhandling referee.
So a player who has been banned for a total 6 matches since 2008, despite being banned from June 2009-June 2011, gets the minimum ban.
He's a VERY lucky boy.

viewtopic.php?f=134&t=507334 Hock and McGoldrick both cop season ending bans (unless Cas do something special)

viewtopic.php?f=134&t=507334 Hock and McGoldrick both cop season ending bans (unless Cas do something special)

If Hock had been a Quins RL player he'd have copped 8, if he'd been a Quins Union player, he'd have got 52 weeks.

How a player can get 6 weeks for biting and then a player only get 4 for potentially blinding someone shows the diciplinary up for the inconsistent muppets they are IMO.

Totally agree. The RFL disciplinary panel is a complete joke and must be one of the most inconsistent ruling panels in the world of sport.