I agree with you, attempted eye gouge ( banned until next season ) and if there were any damage whatsoever to Ben Harrison whether it be a shiner or damage to sight then a lengthy ban would to a lifetime ban would ensue, [uthis is the point Ive been trying to get across [/uand getting shot down from all angles.

When is Hocks hearing?

Anything less than a 6 game ban will be a let off for Hock and another signal that the RFL disciplinary procedure is a joke.

His defense will be that it was purely accidental contact with the eyes, which it probably was at first however once he knew where is hand/fingers were the video evidence clearly shows he intentionally tried to gouge.

There is absolutely no room in the game of RFL for this kind of vicious assault and the RFL need to make an example out of this pillock.

As an aside we also need to know why Hock has these apparant unprovoked anger outbursts. Does he need anger management courses or is he taking something which caused him to lose the plot.

Fingers clearly go into the eyes and he pulls the head back while doing it.

As much as I'm loath to say it, Yawnion is well ahead of us on bans for gouging. Two years ago, two french players got very, very lengthy bans (two and three years respectively iirc) for gouges that weren't much worse than Hock's. Now admittedly in the rolling around code you can't defend yourself at the bottom of a ruck but as far as I'm concerned if anyone is caught deliberately going for someone elses eyes that should be a full season at least. God only knows how the pies can defend someone grabbing another player by the eyeballs on the basis that "he can still see, I don't know why you're fussing", to make another RU comparison the Saffa coach said that the Lions team should try ballet after an SA player nearly blinded a Lions player - it's nice to know Wiganers are in the same level of total brain death as him.

The problem is, you said attempted eye gouging should be a 2 game ban.....

The fact that Hock tried to get the first punch in as Harrison was gaining his feet is as much as an admission of guilt that you are going to get. Hock knew what he had done and was probably expecting Harrison to get up and lamp him one, so he tried to get the first hit in with an upper cut which largely missed its target.

I thought Harrison was very restrained and showed a great deal of self control, not many people would have stood for that without trying to inflict some serious damage in retaliation. In all honesty though I think Harrison is missing a real mean streak that would make him a player to be feared and i dont mean through dirty play

On the restraint, I agree with you here 100%.

I'd also go as far as to say that Harrison did him a favour by not making a big deal of it at the time, had it have been on Tomkins for example, he'd have still been laid flat out now.

I'm not sure ref the lack of aggression, he hits as hard as any player we have.

What time does the hearing take place?

Been on the RFL disciplinary page but still no news.

9 trips....cocaine....what next? Heroin?

Isn't crack meant to give you dark rings under the eyes, sunken cheeks, pronounced cheekbones etc?

Hock has got 5 game ban according to posts on twitter....

"Unfortunate" and Wigan don't "Condone" it.

Very disappointed if true. Means he got the minimum for both charges!

Rfl cop out again!

thats crystal meth mate

So that's what he's on. I knew there was something in his face.

Wish he got away with it, been crap when iv seen him, not been the super hero many wigan fans thought he was gonna be on his return.

4 games for gouging with a disicplinary record like his. What a joke.

You miss the point entirely. It's nothing to do with whether Harrison was injured as a result of Hock's gouging and everything to do with Hock [iintent[/i to gouge. The RFL can't go easy on him because he messed up and missed the major part of Harrison's eye.

For me, 5 games is a little ridiculous. It's telling that when I found out my first reaction was 'well at least he got a ban'. I don't have a huge degree of faith in the disciplinary panel to pass down punishments without being influenced by factors other than the offence itself. There was clear intent in what Hock did and it should have been the full 8 games, considering it's hardly out of character for him. But then that would mean the RFL growing some balls and we all know that's not going to happen anytime soon.

One of those five games is for the punch, he only got the minimum four for the gouging.

Can't say I'm surprised. It means that whether wigan win or lose their first playoff game he still won't play again this season and by the start of next it will be all but forgotten by most.

Untill he fecks up AGAIN. He cannot stop himself.

Case Number:

Name:

Gareth Hock
Age
28yrs
Club and shirt number:

Wigan 34
Match:

Warrington v Wigan
Competition and Date:

Super League 4th September, 2011
Details of allegation:

Gouging and Punching in the 80th minute ( Harrison )
Decision:

Refer to tribunal
Details of Charge / Reason for NFA:

Rule: 15.1 (i)
Detail: Behaviour contrary to the true spirit of the game-Gouging
Grade E

Rule 15.1 (a)
Detail: Strikes-Punching-Lashing out
Grade A

Normal Range of Sanctions in relation to Charged Grade:
4 to 8 matches

SOS/NFA/ 1 match
Date of Disciplinary Committee:
6th September, 2011
Evidence provided:
DVD and Officials Report
DECISION ON CHARGE
Player plea:
Pleads Guilty to both charges.
Summary of CM’s
submissions on the Charge / evidence:
The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in approximately the 80th minute of the Match. You were placed on report following this incident. The Panel considered whether you had gouged the eyes of an opponent (Harrison) and believed that you made unnecessary contact with his eyes or eye area. The Panel believed that there was no need for you to make contact with your opponent’s face as the tackle had been completed. The Panel believed that this action was contrary to the true spirit of the game and that his action had the potential to cause serious injury to the eyes of your opponent

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade E offence (Gouging). If found to have committed the offence, again in accordance with the On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the normal suspension range for such offence is from a 4 match suspension to a 8 match suspension. In addition the Tribunal has the power to impose such fine as it considers reasonable.

I will not be requesting that Disciplinary Tribunal step outside of the Sentencing Guidelines. However the Tribunal may, in the light of any aggravating and mitigating factors they consider appropriate, impose a higher penalty.

The Panel then reviewed an incident which followed on directly from the one described above. In the Panel’s opinion you punched the same opponent in a violent manner. The Panel believed that this behaviour was serious misconduct, against the spirit of the game, and that your punch had the potential to cause injury.

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such an offence is a Grade A offence (Strikes – Punching – Lashing Out). If found to have committed the offence, again in accordance with the On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the normal suspension range for such offence is from no further action to a 1 match suspension. In addition the Tribunal has the power to impose such fine as it considers reasonable.

Again, I will not be requesting that Disciplinary Tribunal step outside of the Sentencing Guidelines. However the Tribunal may, in the light of any aggravating and mitigating factors they consider appropriate, impose a higher penalty.

In presenting both these Charges to the Tribunal, I intend to rely on a recording of the Match.

Summary of Player’s submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Player accompanied by Assistant Head coach Shaun Wane. Assistant coach believes this was totally out of character for Gareth Hock. The club take a firm stance on such issues. The player insists there was no intention to make direct contact with the eyes of the opponent. Player contends that contact was made with the head of the opponent, but that contact with the eyes was unintentional. Furthermore, the player was not looking at his opponent when he made contact with his head. Assistant coach believes contact was made with the eyes but again it was unintentional. Player adds that he was looking for a lever to assist him getting to his feet and as soon as he felt his opponents eyes he removed his hand immediately.Both the player and coach do no contest the punching incident and accept that this was unacceptable behaviour.
Decision:
Guilty plea
Reasons for Decision:

DECISION ON SANCTION (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM’s submissions on the appropriate sanction:
No additional submissions
Summary of Player’s submissions on the appropriate sanction:
Player has played numerous matches and has never appeared before the tribunal for an incident of this kind. Furthermore the assistant coach comments that this is very out of character and was not anintentionally attempt to gouge the eyes of his opponent. Furthermore the player has been out of the game for two years and is still adapting to his re-entry into the game.
Aggravating Factors:

Potential to cause serious injury.

Mitigating Factors:

Guilty plea.
Reasons for Decision:
[size=150The Committee accept that the action was not a deliberate attempt to gouge the opponents eyes.[/size However the committee feel that the the player had no justifiable reason to place his hands in his opponents face. The panel believe the player's actions were reckless and contact was certainly made with the eyes of the opponent. The committee are of the opinion that this had the potential to cause serious injury to the opponent. The panel add that you needlessly struck your opponent after the initial incident. Whilst the committee take into account the guilty plea, they believe that a 4 match suspension for reckless gouging and a 1 match suspension for striking is in order.
Suspension:
5 matches (4 for Gouging and 1 for Striking)
Fine:
£300

I think this puts it to bed

You think that puts it to bed. The rest of us think it just confirms the RFL's lack of balls.



Ridiculous. Completely and utterly in character for Hock and the reason, for me, that it should hev been 8 games, not 4.



So unintentional that, when he realised what he had done, instead of getting to his feet and apologising he punched Harrison on the way up. Yep, really unintentional. Any yet another reason why the RFL are either stupid for believing Hock or a bunch of ball-less sops.

I have a few complaints with this plea, his comments mostly. To start with, I don’t believe that it was “out of character” for Hock, as he has a reputation of being a dirty player.



I don’t believe that for 1 minute, with his team being beaten he was frustrated, and clearly clenches into Harrison’s eyes, yanking his head back in the mean time.



I would be able to accept this had Hock’s hand started on the head, but it goes straight into the eyes, and surely Hock should not be pushing on players heads anyway whilst they’re down?



This doesn’t necessarily mean that he didn’t mean to gouge Harrison.



Somehow, I don’t think that somebody’s eyes should be used as a lever to get up.



For me, his hand stays on Harrison’s face until he (Harrison) moves his head out of the way, and furthermore, Hock stands up and punches him, which somehow doesn't show me that it was unintentional because otherwise he may have apologised for gouging him?

My real issue was with this comment though:



I’m pretty sure that any person who hasn’t ever played Rugby League or any sport for that matter knows that you are not allowed to eye gouge an opponent.

Hock punched Harrison because Harrison pushed Hock, Harrison pushed Hock because of the incident.

Ok