Ok to explain I didn't mean from Flowers punch but the effect it had on the crowd escalating others thus people would be in fear.

Ok I respect your opinion I don't think it will hit the legal process other than the RL. If it does we can come back to the man on the Clapham omnibus

A colleague once mistakenly referred to that test, in a slip of the tongue, as "the man on the Clapham Common", who might have a whole range of different views!

I think you're right. Once it has all calmed down and the RFL have hit Flower hard, I think that will be the end of it.

The biggest problem for the RFL is that it was the last game of the season, so no new news for a while to take the focus away.
Mid season it would be a day or so and then talking about the next game.

What/who is the man on the Clapham omnibus? Never heard that one before.

Is it not a [ihypothetical[/i bystander of reasonable firmness?

[url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_order_offences/I found this[/url

and one dated 1999 where no violence was used - just folk wandering around with petrol bombs - must be England [url=http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/expartem.htmHERE[/url

Has to be more to it than assault - it has drawn the attention of quite a few,it seems.

Yes, that's why I used the phrase "would"; i.e, if that person were present. The person doesn't have to be present but it must also be a situation where the person could be there. For instance, a fight in a house with only two people present wouldn't be an affray as why would an innocent bystander be there, hypothetical or not? You couldn't say in the rugby situation, for example, what if the bystander was standing next to Flower? You have to take reality into account, not just import the hypothetical bystander into any given situation.

The wording of Affray is used or threatened violence, so yes, no need for actual violence. Let's say a group of away fans run down towards the Western terrace towards the North Stand, screaming and swearing, making threats, but back off when a line of stewards appear. That could be an affray. Anyone in the North Stand would be entitled to fear violence even though there wasn't actual violence.

As the guidance you linked to states, it tends to be used where it is either a larger scale incident or becomes somewhat indiscriminate.

From a very old case. Used to describe the concept of objective reasonableness, i.e., the man in the street. How would it look to the man on the Clapham omnibus, etc. A different test to the "man on the night bus to Normy".

That's different, the Police didn't have enough evidence to charge me!

Just watched it at normal speed on a Vine. As bad as it is, it looks less bad at normal speed, in that he punches LH and then follows through as an almost continuous thing. The slow motion replay we've seen makes it look so much more premeditated, but at normal speed it looks like Flower is just having a fight that he perhaps doesn't realise in the heat of the moment he has already won.

Flower lands a beauty that floors Hohaia, Hohaia not going to do much from that position.
After first punch, it was lights out.
No matter if you look at it at normal or slow motion, second punch is just blatant thuggery.

I agree. Just saying that it looks less bad, not that it isn't bad. A bit more "split-second of madness", if you know what I mean, rather than, "there he is, decked, now I'm going to really hurt him".

You would do well in defence too slugger

A young man far too juiced up by the exhortations of his coach; he roughed Hohaia up in back play, got a rise out of him, then seized the opportunity to knock the bejesus out of him. Was it a coincidence that Hohaia was the only recognised HB that Saints could get onto the field? Personally, I don't think so.

The whole incident is indicative of Wigan's attitude to the game - aggression taken way over the line, physical dominance with a blatant disregard for the opposition player and a ruthless, win at all costs mentality. It's been allowed to go too far and this incident should be a catalyst to take some decisive action - make an example of Flower, censure Wane for that team talk video then redraw the boundaries of what is, and isn't, acceptable conduct on the field of play. The toughest team sport in the world is at risk of being dragged back decades by unscrupulous coaches and highly suggestible players.

It seems strange that more hasn't been made out of Wane's coaching "style" or of the fact that Hohaia was Saints only playmaker (apart from Roby of course) and they were certainly rudderless without him, indeed it could be argued that losing Flower was decent exchange if Hohaia couldn't play any further part in the game.
Of course, Wigan will say it was just the stupid actions of an over excited player but, we will never know.

Ironically, with both players having been charged following the game, Hohaia could also receive a ban, albeit somewhat shorter.

Not condoning the punch but Hohaia was the one charging in.
As sole playmaker he wasn't targetted he jumped in holding a target

Flower stiff armed Hohaia round the back of his head and that's what instigated the exchange, Hohaia did what 95% of RL players would do and gave Flower some back, par for the course, That's Rugby!

Flower then took it way beyond the realms of acceptability for any sport.

Don't believe everything that Wigan fans tell you; Flower clobbered Hohaia round the back of the head in the build-up as they both chased the kick - that's what prompted Hohaia to run at him with the bumpers up in the first place.

Fed up of reading what Flower did in back field & how Hohaia hit him.

The second punch from Flower whilst the player was motionless on the ground was absolutely despicable & probably the worst thing I have seen in 50 years of watching Rugby League.

He should be banned for the whole 2015 season.

Flower clattered Hohaia in back play which prompted Ohio to charge a good five yards' to retaliate and give Flower a forearm smash that even Eamonn's uncle (Mick McManus) would be proud of, Flower then did what any good thug would do and levelled him and that's where it should have ended with both receiving a red card, unfortunately Flower probably feeling ashamed that somebody three stone lighter had the nerve to retaliate could not leave it at that and exacted further cowardly retribution, For his less spectacular role in this sorry episode Ohio will get the two match ban he deserves and Flower will if there's any justice for his starring role get twelve matches', it's a pity that the only way he can get recognition is for his thuggery and not for being a rugby player.

I think it should be more because I think its worse than using a performance enhancer and doesnt that carry a ban up to 3 years? If it stamps out this behaviour I'm all for it.

Completely different issue in my opinion.

Aggressive foul play is of course worse than taking drugs, but the long term damage of each is very different, both personally and to the sport in general.
The penalty for drugs should be much longer than foul play.

At the end of the day he hit someone who couldn't defend themselves.
But how different is that to hitting someone from behind when they are not looking? Fages was knocked out for a hit like that and no one was calling for a season long ban.

For me, it should be 8-10 matches, or a period of time that covers that many matches.
There is no need for more. If Hohaia isn't upset I don't see why everybody is so traumatised about it.
Shocking incident yes, but let's not go over the top.

I saw it.
Flower was running afetr the ball.
Hohaia stepped across him to slow him down.
Flower cuffed him to get him out of the way.
Hohaia chased 10 metres to get him back with a swing to the head
Flower hit him with a sweet punch
Flower then on getting up put a cheap shot in.

At each of those points, they could have left it alone. But neither did.
They are both to blame. Hohaia suffered becausehe lost the spat, Flower suffered because he took it too far.

The way I saw it, Hohaia maintained his line towards the ball - he doesn't have to step aside to let Flower have easy access to a contested ball; this happens in every game every week and is hardly license for the offended party to take whatever restorative actions he deems necessary, particularly not clouting the runner round the back of the head. It was wrong of Hohaia to retaliate and it was wrong of Flower to re-retaliate - what followed was just sickening thuggery.

I'm surprised that anyone would suggest that Hohaia deserved what happened to him; apart from Gareth Hock - I wasn't at all surprised that he did.

In 2004 Doncaster had a player banned for 6 months for foul play against a Batley player so with this being in a Grand Final shown on TV I would think he might be looking at longer