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.