If he's sacked him, possible big unfair dismissal claim on the way.

I wonder if Hock does go and Puletua gets picked up who the replacement would be, two second rows gone but an obvious need for a hooker. You'd think with their combined salary there's a decent contract available for the right player.

As someone else said on another thread Paul Carter from the NRL would be ideal, though the Doc might just have had his fill of meaning broken wings.

He wouldn't have a knee to lean on, let alone a leg to stand on.

If somebody who worked at Tesco was caught on CCTV twice in the same shift putting their knee in people's faces and also thumping someone, what would the outcome be?

Unless it's by mutual consent or a "fair" dismissal I don't think the salary is freed up under the cap rules. If you just pay off a player's contract then you have still spent that money out of the current (and potentially next) years cap!

If this is true about Hock have we got a source i won't believe anything just on rumour?

If my maths is correct, when Hock's ban ends he'd of missed 20 out of a possible 36 SL games.

As he'll probably be one of the top earners at the club that return is just not acceptable!

Should've binned him off after his "accidental collision" with the referee last season.

No need for a hooker. You've got a perfectly good one in Liam Hood. Why that baffoon Harris plays Tommy Lee there only he knows. Hood will play in your next game and watch the difference around the ruck, you'll look a different side.

In my opinion we looked better when Theo Fages came on and he's a scrum half. Tommy Lee is a loose forward for me.

If Hock would have tackled Kevin Penny like that he'd have got a 392758 game ban, Nabuli gets told he's a naughty boy.

It's a fix I tells ya.

No consistency it's so annoying. Going off Westwood's tackle on Walne in round 1 it was a yellow card.

On another subject how good has St George's kicking game been in that first half? Take note Salford our's has been poor at best so far, practice, practice and practice some more. What a massive difference a good kicking game makes.

It was James Cunningham, on loan from Hull FC.

Am I the only person who thinks Gaz Hock is getting a really rough deal? Is rugby league still a tough man's sport? Other players are week in week out putting in much worse offences with little or no punishment. Has he actually hurt anyone? Has he seriously tried to do anyone damage? For me the answer is no. It seems to me that the powers that be have decided that they're going to punish him no matter what. The first knees incident was stupid but didn't cause any injury ( a yellow card or maybe 1 game ban offence?). The 2nd one didn't look intentional to me. I saw a Cas player do exactly the same thing on the same weekend - nothing. There's the accidental collision with the ref. - I still can't say for sure that he meant to do that - no-one thought anything of it until they dreamed it up in the days after the game - and then hit him with a massive 7? game ban. Who can say if it was intentional - no-one.

It's like they really want to drive him out of the game - which is a disgusting way for a games governing body to act. Then every idiot with a keyboard or twitter account gets in on the OUTRAGE!!! and tries to make out that he's a disgrace to every player who's ever laced a pair of rugby boots and Baz & Tez will be turning in their graves... (they're still alive? Sorry, my bad).

If we learnt anything from the Terry Newton incident it's that we need to help and support players. Yet, they have gone the other way with Hock and it's like they're hounding him out of the game altogether.

Loads of people will say that he's had too many chances and I'm fully expecting them all to reply - and that's fine as we all have opinions. All I would say is look at what he's actually done - that you can prove was intended. I know he's no angel but it's not like he goes out to maim or injure in every game - he's just a bit daft.

Then the same people yearn for the era of the Biff ????

Don't even get me started on the Twitter OUTRAGE!!!! - Some complete bell end spends an evening trying to wind him up, being abusive and hitting all the right buttons and when he replies with an insult of his own it's a disgrace and he needs to be banned etc...

I'd agree the incidents themselves aren't at the most serious end of the spectrum. However, with Hock, you can't seperate the incidents from the offender. If, for instance, Kylie Leuluai had committed the first offence I doubt it would have even been punished beyond a warning letter. If he'd done both then probably a 1 or 2 match ban.

But since Hock has been done so many times for such stupid offences then the ban is probably about right. Any offence by Hock is going to be harshly punished. In the same way as an offender just out of jail will get punished more harshly than someone who has a clean record for the same crime.

Did anyone see tony smiths comments about the high tackles seems to have a short memory regarding westwood this guy is as much a thug as hock is!

Surely you need to draw a line under it somewhere though- where does it end?

That high tackle last night was deemed a penalty sufficient for any other player. If Gareth Hock does it it's a sending off and 8 match ban.

The punishment needs to fit the crime no matter who does it.

It ends when Hock stops doing stupid things - or at least has a significant period of time doing not stupid things. Several players have been in a similar category of stupidity over the years (Scott Moore jumps to mind) but have now had a period out of the spotlight of the disciplinary and would expect any citation now to fall nearer the "norm".

Do you disagree with the grading of the two incidents? Because the grading should be the same regardless of the player, his previous only means he got the upper end of those grades as opposed the lower.

Don't disagree with the grading but it seems illogical to get 3 games for each. Surely by ignoring the issue and committing the same offence again in the same match the second offence must be worthy of a greater punishment than the first?
If so then getting 3 for the second can be understood, but why 3 for the first?

Does look rather like "it's Hock so throw the book" doesn't it?

Personally I do think Hock gets harsh discipline from the RFL and all the more reason to play by the rules. However I have to question if this situation isn't helped by the Doc's public and persistent criticism of RFL Chief Executive Nigel Wood. I'd imagine it to be a snowball effect, criticise him and it's like criticising everybody employed by the RFL from referees to the people on the disciplinary panel.

Unfortunately the Doc and Hock are a disasterous combination.

Does Hock get a rough deal? maybe but a player will a modicum of sense would realise it and adjust his behaviour accordingly. This recent incident is a prime example, the first offence is put on report, Hock now knows he will face a ban so he does what ? within minutes commits the same offence again on TV he was never going to get away with it. Here lies the true problem, he is a top earner, yet plays less than 3rd of the possible games.

For me it's time to end his Salford career, with the other issues we have we can't afford to keep him.

You're preaching to the converted.
As I've said previously,he was stupid but the punishment bears no comparison to the crime.
Soft target for the RFL .
Easier decision than giving a yellow card to an Aussie
Stinks

If he thought he was being victimised why give the RFL every opportunity. If he did not do these things he would not need to worry.
I am sorry but some of his bans involves running into the referee not a good career move and currently one unique to him. I am not a Salford supporter but he continues to let you and the club down.

That's the one. Thanks

He's gone now. Good luck to him I say. I hope he can find a club somewhere and play to his full potential (but just not against Salford).

I think the club have made the right decision to end Hock's employment, but I think all the hysteria and derogatory remarks from people about him on social media is taking things too far.