Given that the panel have adjudged the offence reckless, rather than pre-meditated or intentional the suspension is spot on and directly in line with the sentencing guidelines. 4 Matches is about right. As for punching, players at amateur level regularly get 4 games for throwing a punch whereas professional players, I would say, are banned usually no more than 1 game and only for about 10% of the offences committed. My guess is that without the other offence there would have been no ban for punching. Stupid mistake by the player, punishment handed out accordingly, hysterical trolls/'sack him' knee-jerk Wigan fans move on.

apprently ben harrison stood up for mr HOCK and said he didnt go for my eyes,, it was an accident he never felt a thing near his eyes,, fair play to ben i say for sticking up for HOCK.. todays news will be tomorrows chippy paper.. HOCKS gone now for season.. lets get behind THOSE still PLAYIN ,, COME ON WIGAN,,

The Committee accept that the action was not a deliberate attempt to gouge the opponents eyes <<<<<< SAYS IT ALLS.. let it rest now eh,?????

A grade E offence carries a ban of 4-8 games so as there was no injury inflicted to the letter of the law 4 games plus 1 for the punch looks to be about right anyway, that'll do so much for "he'll be like a new signing" see you next year you fool

Your joking right?

Have you read Ben Harrison's take on it??

Guessing you missed the pain written all over his face then?

Well that is probably because he didn't cause more discomfort given Harrison's lack of reaction. So I think 4 is about right. What Whitehead got is irrelevant because it wasn't the same offence and if 5 was too much for that then that is a different matter.



It's going to be very hard to argue lack of consistency since gouging is such a rare offence but as has been mentioned earlier, Hock's ban is the same as that given to someone last season for the same offence. How is that inconsistent? You can argue it was too lenient but not inconsistent.

EDIT: and just saw this above : "The Committee accept that the action was not a deliberate attempt to gouge the opponents eyes. "

4 is definitely right if that is their view.

well said..

Hock's ban is the same as that given to someone last season for the same offence. How is that inconsistent? You can argue it was too lenient but not inconsistent.

Yes but with Liam Prescott last year the report states

"In deciding sanction the committee have taken into account this players previous good record and the submissions made on his behalf. If this players record had not been commendable the sanction imposed would have been more."

can the same be said for hock?

Yes missing another final will hit him more than anything the RFL will throw at him. He missed last season GF with a ban and was not in the side at Wembley. I just hope he now learns from this, he is still potentially a great player but he needs to curb his aggression especially given the game was over.

As for the punishement handed down i do think he has been a bit lucky with 5 games but RFL do tend to go for the minimum penalty for any offence if the player has no previous for that offence. I know he has just come off a major ban but i am talking about on field rather than off.

They viewed the Liam Prescott incident to be deliberate gouging and he also pleaded not guilty, whereas Hock admitted guilt.

Get real pal ,
Mr Hock is one real fruit case , and you know it .

you met Mr Hock then? Just because he's a hard nut on the field, doesn't mean he's a "fruit case"as you call it.

What as our game become?

The ban for the gouge fine no arguments with that he got off lightly but 1 game ban for a punch and it's not the first time this season it's rugby league not football

I miss the days they used to sort it out with a scrap then get on with the game you wont be able to tackle next......oh wait

I just think Hock is an idiot and will he ever learn?

Many will not agree including my son but if I was in charge I would get rid, I do not want people like him in my Wigan team. He is a good player but being a better influence is more important. He is only back for about 6 matches and cannot control himself, therefore get rid as he does not deserve the support he has had already.

In my opinion he has had a chance that rarely happens in other situations and has now abused the chance. Basically no more excuses grow up and be a normal person if not disappear.

5 matches - DISGRACE TO THE, OR ANY, SPORT -

If, he did go for it - FOOL

Gouging should be sign die - end of

How's this going to help?

no comment

If you're going to rant at least try to make it coherent so we can all have a good laugh.

That's fair for me, enough to make sure 2011 is over for Mr Hock, i bet this is what they thought, if there had been a potential 6 games left i think he'd have got that, common sense, job done, move on.

Get real pal .

No pal ,guess i aint met the guy . I guess you would,nt be so keen on him ,if you worn different colour specs .

frekkkkinnn dicked,,,,,with cross out n fielden n mossop n now hock we look pretty thin n the pack...cant see us beating the wire at old trafford with coley n lima.....???????????????

I don't feel the average non Wigan fan has an agenda against Hock - he is seen for what he is and that is a good player with a discipline problem both on and off the field.
I would have in my squad if he could curb the thuggery on-field and guarantee him staying 'clean' off-field.