He is responsible for having his hands where he had them.

Many people put their hands on peoples faces. They aren't all charged for gouging.

Mainly because they try not to claw their fingers into an eye socket and pull. Just a thought.

Many people dont make the action Hock did when their fingers were around the eyes. He cant do what he did and expect the benefit of the doubt for his intent.

Im not sure he intended to eye gouge but equally im sure every movement he makes is knowing the hands are in the face and his fingers around the eyes. His responsibility is to not do what he did. The fact it may have been reckless as opposed to intentional isnt much of a defence. And to argue it was reckless rather than intentional is difficult when he goes on to swing at the same player.

How was Hock to know Harrison has eyes on the front of his face derr ?

Perfectly fair argument – we cannot be 100% sure that it was a deliberate gouge but he did pull at his face around the eyes and that in itself is dangerous and reckless (not to mention the punch that followed)

I would have no arguments with him getting a lengthy ban

I'm not defending him. I'm querying whether the gouge was deliberate

And im trying to question how important that is. An accidental eye gouge is still an eye gouge.

Of course it was deliberate, if it was accidental do you think the following punch would have happened???

Yes because Harrison elbowed him

Query all you like but I think most people think it was, including most of the Cherry and White lot which is a minor miracle.

It is. But he doesn't deserve all this stick if it was accidental. I'm not 100% sure but that's my opinion

If someone gouged me during a game a swift elbow would be the least of what I'd do.

As I said , how was Hock to know Harrison has eyes on the front of his head ?

No, he deserves every bit of it for being reckless in such a position. That is still a disgusting offence.

But he doesn't deserve as much stick if it's not deliberate

Same for me. Hock had no right to punch him either.

Yes he does. Reckless isnt blameless. Especially in the situation Hock found himself in.

Reckless isnt accidental.

The significant difference is that reckless should get a ban (I would suggest 4 or 5 matches) whereas a deliberate eye gouge for me should see him banned for a hell of a lot longer

He may have been reckless but I'm not 100% sure that he deliberately gouged.

In this situation im not sure there would be a huge difference. Im loathed to accept that Hock meant to eye gouge, but he did what he did, knowing his hands were where they were, i cant see any mitigation for his actions. Higher end of the scale for me.

I guess I’m loathe to accept it as deliberate too – probably because eye gouging is the lowest and dirtiest action on a rugby field and should not be tolerated

As far as I am concerned, if a player is found guilty of a deliberate eye gouge, the ban should be measured in years not matches

He should be banned for a while. If he meant it I think he should get a lot longer than 8 games. That tackling technique can cause a lot of injury.

Whether he meant it or not, he still did it. He also followed up with a punch and I was actually quite surprised that he didn't get sent off on the spot.

Nice way to repay Wigan after they give him a second chance

he could have moved his hand at any time. for me it was blatant and how anyone can question it is beyond me