I can only assume you have not seen the incident.

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.