I dont see how Hock can get 2 games and Tuson only 1. Both players acted in retaliation but Tuson threw about 725 punches

and Hock about 6?

Wane seemed like he wasnt happy with the Hock one and was considering appealing after speaking to our solicitors on his interview on sky last night. Not sure when we will find out about that though.

LMS was the one who started trying to rough Hock up in the scrum in the first place. It appears to me that Hock's hand is on LMS to push him away as LMS is constantly pushing his head towards him. It only seems to be replaying it from the head roll of Hock, completely missing the bit before by LMS.

Cracking picture. Finch looks like he's about to cry.

Wilkin trying his best to look involved

The caption is a bit out of order though: "Had an eyeful: Wigan's Chris Tuson (3rd L) is gouged by St Helens' Shaun Magennis"

I think you'll find LMS had no case to answer.

LMS did not throw one punch.

There have been many occasions where people pack down in the scrum and mess about. It's only when the fists start flying that a mass brawl breaks out.

As for LMS starting it, well that's subjective, ask Wigan fans they will say yes, ask Saints fans they will say it was all hock. To be honest it was Saints scrum wasn't it???? So our head and ball, therefore Hock should have had his head on the inside. But unlike most I have not watched it back, so maybe it was Wigans scrum I really can't recall as I was a bit distracted by the flying fists.

Why does Hock get 2 rather than the Tuson 1, well maybe previous records come in to consideration, they do in most judicial matters, just a thought as it's not Hocks first round with the judiciary.

LMS didnt throw one punch but he threw his head instead

If you watched it back you would see this.

Scrotebrook tried to headbutt Hock. Hock then retaliated by throwing punches, thats not a 2 game ban no matter who it was imo.

I dont know if I am missing something or it may have been mentioned before,but has Mossop been hasty entering an early guilty plea.
After seeing the amount of punches Tuson threw only and then to only get one match,maybe Mossop would have got off with sending off sufficent due to his previous good record. After all the fight stopped when he threw that punch.

Trouble is Mossop didnt get sent off.

Tuson had the option to cop a guilty plea like Mossop and did so. That is why he got one match.

It is strange though because the minimum tariff for the offence he was charged with is two matches so while I am pleased he only got one game it seems a bit daft to allow a player to effectively downgrade the offence by pleading guilty.

In contrast Hock got the maximum tariif for the class of offence he was charged with despite pleading guilty and despite being sent off in the game for a fight that was nothing out of ordinary unlike Tuson's contribution.

I think Hock was hard done by and I bet there are plenty of other cases where players with a reputation have been given sending off sufficient or just one match.

Sporting life saying Hock is to appeal tonight www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ml&BID=480

Sporting life saying Hock is to appeal tonight www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ml&BID=480

Hock caused it by trying to get his head to the outside when he knew it was Saints scrum so it should have been a Saints head on the outside. The ref should have stepped in then and told Hock to stop acting stupid in the scrum.

Ok found it on you tube,

52:14, hock beds down head on the wrong side of the scrum
52:14 LMS lifts his head and pushed hock (CORRECTLY) inside the scrum and puts his head down on the outside, this is where it should have stopped
LMS head is now lined up infront of hocks shoulder, and hock infront of LMS shoulder, where as they should have been both tucked in.
LMS pushes forward in the scrum shoving head into hocks shoulder, hock is off balanced.

Hock not liking being pushed backwards, ducks his head around and under LMS in an attempt to (and I'm being generous here) push him off. However to any other person he is lifting the back of his head into LMS. LMS takes this as a head butt.

LMS stands up as does hock and go face to face, hock with his hands up straight away grabbing hold of LMS's head.

After that other players gather around and hock gets a few sly digs in. LMS has his arms around hocks waist in a grapple you could say and good job he did as if he had not hock could have backed away and rather than the punches thrown hitting LMS in the chest or stomach (can't really see) he would have been upper cutting into the face.

The closest thing to a head butt is Hock after having his head pushed back into the middle of the scrum.

It was the usual from Hock, trying to impose himself on opposition players, there is a few on You Tube to choose from. You have to watch it several times but no LMS does not head butt, if you feel i'm biased, well he was not cited for any head butt.

I think if Wayne is saying such in any appeal he needs to be careful with his words as he could easily end up accusing a player (LMS) of something he has not done.

Well all your research and comments based on it are completely irrelevant because Wigan and Wane are not appealing Hock's guilt but the severity of the punishment.



There is no way LMS is going to get metioned at all.

Quote ="DaveO"Well all your research and comments based on it are completely irrelevant because Wigan and Wane are not appealing Hock's guilt but the severity of the punishment. There is no way LMS is going to get metioned at all.'" Well they tried it the first time round www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3700 The player admits the charges against him. Mr Wane (Head Coach) added that his opponent initiated the confrontation by head-butting Mr Hock, and that Gareth is often provoked by his opponents. Mr Hock concurred with this view and added that during the confrontation his opponent through a number of punches which he then retaliated to. He plead guilty to start with, they used LMS to try and reduce the severity of the sentence It's not unreasonable that they would try the same again.

Quote ="DaveO"Well all your research and comments based on it are completely irrelevant because Wigan and Wane are not appealing Hock's guilt but the severity of the punishment. There is no way LMS is going to get metioned at all.'" Well they tried it the first time round www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3700 The player admits the charges against him. Mr Wane (Head Coach) added that his opponent initiated the confrontation by head-butting Mr Hock, and that Gareth is often provoked by his opponents. Mr Hock concurred with this view and added that during the confrontation his opponent through a number of punches which he then retaliated to. He plead guilty to start with, they used LMS to try and reduce the severity of the sentence It's not unreasonable that they would try the same again.

They are hoping to get Hocks suspension reduced. That may fail, but, LMS may cop a suspension after hearing mitigating circumstances.

The cut and dried of it is, Gaz Hock got the maximum punishment because he's Gaz Hock. His previous record goes before him whenever he goes in front of the disciplinary so I really can't see the appeal being successful. Had it been a player up with a clean record up before the beak after doing what Hock did it would have been a different outcome

Would be great to have Hocky back for Catalans away if he can only get it reduced by a game.

Appeal dismissed, ban stands.

Naturally, previous records are taken into account in every judicial hearing sporting or otherwise.

Get caught speeding once get a fine and a telling off, get caught speeding for the 10th time expect some jail time.

It's Tuson who should have been appealing the decision, not Hock.

The incident with Tuson was no different to this incident involving Joel Tomkins against Hull except Tuson was faced with greater provocation.

[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2404[/url

How Tuson was initially charged with a higher grade offence for pretty much identical incident is ridiculous.

would Hocks 2 nd game rule him out of the Exiles ?

[urlhttp://www.superleague.co.uk/article/25250/hock-fails-with-appeal?[/url

Wigan Warriors forward Gareth Hock has lost his appeal against the two-match ban he received following his dismissal against St Helens on Sunday.

Hock, one of three players sent off by referee Ben Thaler following a brawl at a scrum, was given the suspension when he appeared in front of the Rugby Football League’s disciplinary panel last night.

Today he appealed against the severity of the sentence but the original decision was upheld and he was forced to surrender a £200 bond on top of a £300 fine.

Hock, who has been an ever-present up to now, will miss Friday’s game with champions Leeds Rhinos and Wigan’s trip to Catalan Dragons the following Saturday.

He was not named in Wigan coach Shaun Wane’s 19-man squad, which includes youngsters Rhodri Lloyd and Jack Murphy who are hoping to make their debuts.

With Paul Prescott, Harrison Hansen and Ben Flower all injured, Wane has also called up Tom Spencer, Logan Tomkins and Dom Crosby, who have just eight Stobart Super League appearances between them.

Not sure that there should be an additional punishment for an appeal.

Is the bond to cover the admin costs of the appeal?