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.

McGoldrick got the maximum two matches (although I think he should have been charged with a more serious offence).

eye gouging has no place in our game. it is a rugby onion thing. it should be stamped out . hock should have got the full eight matches .

My mistake. Thought I'd read he hadn't got a ban

How many matches for stamping?

I can only assume they viewed his ban for manhandling the referee as unrelated, in a similar way that having had bans for spear tackles might not count too much against a player charged with dangerous contact. It will probably become clear once they put the summary on the RFL website.

As long as he's out for the season i'm happy.

Yeah, we'll have to remember that and stop booing all the Leeds players whenever they turn out for England. Oh, hang on ...

I guess the RFL were in a good mood today, he should think himself lucky it was only 4 matches for the gouging.

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:
The Committee accept that the action was not a deliberate attempt to gouge the opponents eyes. 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

Think he got off likely, after the faith Wigan put in him, he has let everyone down. Aussies are always looking for thug front rowers, hope Madge takes him with him.

I thought eye gouging or a poke in the eye often hurts yet if you look at the clip Harrison was not in any pain or even knew he had a finger across hes eye. why? Because no finger was inserted in Harrison's eye come on the first thing anyone does when any pain in the eye is to put your hand up to your eye to feel the amount of damage done and Harrison knows that Hock did not hurt him one bit in the eye department. I am all for banning on eye gouging but come on this boils down to an agenda towards Hock lets be fair,

I can only assume you have not seen the incident.