so should we give hock a pat on the back

The Quins player pleaded not guilty which it seems p*ssed the judiciary off, hence a hefty ban.

Ends his season and possible Grand Final team place.

That will hurt him enough.

Good one.

suppose he as badly let his team mates down and the club who shown faith in him and stood by him

He's let himself down badly - again.

As a fan I'm extremely disappointed in him and I'm sure the club are.

I thought it should have been 6-8 games but its ended his season and I think thats probably been factored into the decision.

I'd like to consider myself a pretty neutral fan and don't won't write rubbish like "Sam Tomkins' dad is on the disciplinary panel"

but that ban is a joke. In fact the bans are completely inconsistent this year.

Whitehead got 5 games for biting. Fully deserved as we don't need that kind of play in our game. Reason why it was only 5 was because he had a clean record. As bad as biting is, gouging is much worse, plus take the fact Hocks dismal record (even taking the drugs ban out of it), it is a stupidly low ban. He should have had the book thrown at him and the RFL should have showed that it has no place in our sport. What do you have to do to get 8, blind somebody???

Then also we got Ryan Mcgoldrick doing one of the most dangerous tackles i've ever seen getting nothing, yet every week players get random bans for "undue pressure nonsence"

One for punching? He missed anyway, and every week we see punches thrown and no bans.

cheers it's nice to have a sensible wigan poster that is unbiased

let's be fair, there is a very fine line between grabbing the head by the eyebrows, and eye gouging... and I think the RFL probably took Harrison's reaction (or lack therefore of) into account.

The ban is proportionate to the ACTUAL offence, and bear in mind that it will end his season and, perhaps, give him a 1 game reminder in 2012.

By he's been lucky. Quite why his sentence is so lenient is something I'd love to know, it isn't because of his exemplary record that's for sure.

Am I right in thinking that one pre-season friendly can count towards a ban?

Fully deserved. As a Wigan fan after everything he has put us through I am really pee'd off with him.

To be honest I am not sure he was quite ready to play for us in the playoff despite giving us a good game on Sunday - we like to play with structure and composure and Hocks offloads as good as they can be do not really fit in with our current controlled/structured style of play. I get the feeling as the players around him are not quite sure what to do from one minute to the next when he is on the field.

Providing we do not get any injuries (touch wood) I think we will be stronger side without him in it this season.

Long term - he will be an awesome replacement for Coley as long as he can curb the brainf*rts with and without the ball in hand. He will benefit from a full season and hopefully this well help him sort his inconsistant mentality out.

Well i got that bang on as i posted in another thread,

4 for gouging 1 for punching

Now what remains to be seen is whether they launch a ridiculous appeal founded on nonsense, or just take what's been handed out and move on, which they should imo.

First off, it's a myth that Gouging is somehow "worse" than biting. They're both equally bad and carry the same potential for injury, possibly more in the case of biting due to the possibility of infection and the comparitive strength of the jaw. Both infringements are, at the extreme worst possible case, possibly fatal.

That said, I'm confused how Whitehead, a player with a very good disciplinary record, gets 5 for a bite that didn't cause any damage, whilst Hock, whose record is probably one of the worst in the game, probably caused more discomfort to the player affected than Whitehead did, gets 4 for an EQUIVALENT infringement?

I expected 6 minimum, just for the gouging.

I know it's the end of the season, but that's no excuse to me. What would have happened if it had been the last 30 seconds of the Grand Final? 1 match ban covered by a pre-season friendly?

He deserved a ban, and 5 matches is no doubt a lengthy ban, but where's the consistency?

I don't think IFL goes for appeals tbh

Is that an attempted pop at Wigan, or just about the way the disciplinary panel is treated in general? When Wigan appeal they generally do so pretty well as opposed to frivolous appeals. This ban obviously shouldn't and almost certainly won't be appealed.

hes a first class idiot . no place for that in our game. let himself , the club and the fans down. With mossop out it was his time to shine. complete idiot

=#FF0080Give it a rest, even if it was an attempt at "humour"

Mods

To be fair, Whitehead pleaded not guilty, which in the circumstances was absolutely ridiculous given he was obviously guilty. I can only assume Hock pleaded guilty.

Do you think that the club will discipline him as well?

bearing in mind that your coach said he thought hock did nothing wrong.

If they did tomkins for sticking the v's up... then surely they will also do hock for gouging.

I think Hocky can consider himself lucky that he only got the four matches for the gouging.

I'm struggling to understand, though, how his punch was worth one game while McGoldrick's assault on Obst was not worthy of a ban at all. Bonkers

Is this a blessing in disguise?

Hock can be a terrific player but he can be a frustrating one, for every bit of magic he can create he also comes up with silly off the cuff plays that can back fire on the team and that can cost us when the pressure is on.

Hopefully somebody else takes this opportunity.

But if Hock pleaded guilty with his record, seems strange he would only get the minimum ban, but hey ho not a big loss for Wigan.

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.