gaz hock thread

[highland convert]

He did not deliberately gouge. but his hand covered the eyes and his hands should not have been there so we will ban him for four matches cos he could have. Well officer I have three pints in me and my car keys in my pocket. I did not get in the car but you are doing me for drink driving cos I could have. Sounds fair I don't think. He did and recieves punishment or he did not and does not. That is the law of the land. unless the judge is red hall and the player is Wigan.

[DaveO]

He did not deliberately gouge. but his hand covered the eyes and his hands should not have been there so we will ban him for four matches cos he could have. Well officer I have three pints in me and my car keys in my pocket. I did not get in the car but you are doing me for drink driving cos I could have. Sounds fair I don't think. He did and recieves punishment or he did not and does not. That is the law of the land. unless the judge is red hall and the player is Wigan.

Hock pleaded guilty to gouging. What else were the RFL supposed to do given he did that?

[Panchitta Marra]

He did not deliberately gouge. but his hand covered the eyes and his hands should not have been there so we will ban him for four matches cos he could have. Well officer I have three pints in me and my car keys in my pocket. I did not get in the car but you are doing me for drink driving cos I could have. Sounds fair I don't think. He did and recieves punishment or he did not and does not. That is the law of the land. unless the judge is red hall and the player is Wigan.

Hock pleaded guilty to gouging. What else were the RFL supposed to do given he did that?

Was it Gouging that Hock pleaded guilty to, or was it wreckless conduct, not necessarily the same thing.

[cpwigan]

Wigan rarely do not plead guilty to something, hoping for a more lenient suspension.

[GBH]

Wigan rarely do not plead guilty to something, hoping for a more lenient suspension.

And look where that's got us he never actually gouged so he shouldn't of got 4 match ban possible 1, but then again you cant blame RFL when most on here had him hung drawn and quartered straight away. Hate for some to be on a jury!

[exile in Tiger country]

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.

This is a little too like the points deduction for breaching "The Spirit of the salary cap."
Every week players receive what Stevo calls a "facial". Surely each and every one dishing out these facials must now get a four match ban?
Their hands have gone near the eyes of the opponent and this "has the potential to cause injury".

[exile in Tiger country]

Wigan rarely do not plead guilty to something, hoping for a more lenient suspension.

And look where that's got us he never actually gouged so he shouldn't of got 4 match ban possible 1, but then again you cant blame RFL when most on here had him hung drawn and quartered straight away. Hate for some to be on a jury!

:eusa2: :eusa2: :eusa2: :eusa2:

[cpwigan]

Wigan rarely do not plead guilty to something, hoping for a more lenient suspension.

And look where that's got us he never actually gouged so he shouldn't of got 4 match ban possible 1, but then again you cant blame RFL when most on here had him hung drawn and quartered straight away. Hate for some to be on a jury!

Totally agree GBH

[josie andrews]

I agree too GBH, was an accident, but it's not only on here that he was pilloried! All the media jumped on it as well.

[cpwigan]

The RL Media are incredibly irresponsible and their conduct does the game no favours.

People elsewhere have scoffed at the been away from the game for 2 years excuse BUT it is relevant. Gaz by his own admission is not the sharpest tool in the box and if you were going to deliberately break the rules, the 80th minute makes no sense whatsoever. I do think Hocky is somebody who prefers old fashioned defending where people try to run straight through you and you knock them down with a proper tackle. Wrestling etc defence is more complicated and Gaz sometimes gets it wrong.