Hock in Trouble Again

[Wigan_forever1985]

Your making an argument against a separate matter though cp, the punishments is a completely separate matter. The fact of the matter is those are the rules so that is the way it works.

If you kill someone you get life - get drunk and mow someone down in a car 3-5 years, just? Not really but that's not for me to decide.

Whether or not 8 matches is just for contact with a referee is a debate that does not include hock, those are the rules so that's the punishment.

Look at it this way

If the whole of my street don't insure their cars and aren't getting caught/punished should I do the same? No

If I do the same and get a harsh punishment am I the victim? No

If the punishment for not insuring my car was £10000 and I was forced to pay the full whack and someone conning a charity gets a £50 fine, does that make me innocent or my punishment unjust? No I knew the possible punishment so I shouldn't be shocked if it's enforced fully

I am not perfect but I do take responsibility for my own actions - for example I once parked on a car park that was free from 5pm and my tick ran out at 4:30pm, I got delayed and at 4:45pm I got a parking ticket which amounted to £40 when a full days parking was only £5. There is no one to blame in that situation but me, I'm could complain how petty it was but why? I broke the rules I knew the punishment and I ran the risk and got caught out its my fault 100%

[BriH]

There are some people who feel the need to defend a player like hock despite the fact he does nothing to earn this its not poor badly done to hock, he is the one who keeps making these choices.

No one forced him to put hands on a referee the first time
no one forced him to take cocaine
no one forced him to put hands on a referee again
no one forced him to break the rules in the england camp
no one forced him to send the ref flying in this game

these are his choices, and he clearly is going to continue making them incorrectly.

As for the punishment not fitting the crime - irrelavent IMO - in fact if anything it just makes his actions harder to defend, how easy is this DONT TOUCH THE REF, regardless of what others are doing you dont do it!.

People zone in on poor mr hock and the world out to get him, well, the way others are punished for the same actions again IMO is irrelavent the FACT is that if he played by the rules he wouldnt get a single ban so they are all 100% HIS FAULT.

Agree. I'm sick and tired of people saying "he needs help etc. etc." I'm specifically referring to Baz and Taz on Boots n All.
He has an apalling record stretching back over a number of years now and as had every chance to redeem himself and grow up.
Enough is enough.

[i'm spartacus]

The RFL is totally inconsistent in disciplinary matters and even worse places a match official being pushed over far worse than players being subjected to potentially career ending fouls.

The point is that the players play the game in the knowledge that it is a contact sport in which there will be hard physical contact. They all make a conscious decision to accept the risk that playing the sport can result in injury, and the rules are there to punish those who expose other players to unacceptable risk.

Officials are not playing a contact sport at all, they are on the outside of the physical contact and have no part in it. The risk they accept is that they may be injured through an accidental contact (such as Bentham's broken leg), but they should not be deliberately exposed to the risk of injury through the actions of some brainless Neanderthal who has a Luis Suarez type tendency to make contact with them because he feels like it.

[Owd Codger]

There are some people who feel the need to defend a player like hock despite the fact he does nothing to earn this its not poor badly done to hock, he is the one who keeps making these choices.

No one forced him to put hands on a referee the first time
no one forced him to take cocaine
no one forced him to put hands on a referee again
no one forced him to break the rules in the england camp
no one forced him to send the ref flying in this game

these are his choices, and he clearly is going to continue making them incorrectly.

As for the punishment not fitting the crime - irrelavent IMO - in fact if anything it just makes his actions harder to defend, how easy is this DONT TOUCH THE REF, regardless of what others are doing you dont do it!.

People zone in on poor mr hock and the world out to get him, well, the way others are punished for the same actions again IMO is irrelavent the FACT is that if he played by the rules he wouldnt get a single ban so they are all 100% HIS FAULT.

Agree. I'm sick and tired of people saying "he needs help etc. etc." I'm specifically referring to Baz and Taz on Boots n All.
He has an apalling record stretching back over a number of years now and as had every chance to redeem himself and grow up.
Enough is enough.

Correct, and it goes to the days when as 'Charnock' he came back to the club from a 'holiday' for being a naughty boy and ML had a good chat with him and give him a second chance to prove himself on the field as a future International.

But it did not sink in and the rest is history.

A great player but ruined as Poirot would say, by a lack of the the grey cells!

[cpwigan]

The RFL is totally inconsistent in disciplinary matters and even worse places a match official being pushed over far worse than players being subjected to potentially career ending fouls.

The point is that the players play the game in the knowledge that it is a contact sport in which there will be hard physical contact. They all make a conscious decision to accept the risk that playing the sport can result in injury, and the rules are there to punish those who expose other players to unacceptable risk.

Officials are not playing a contact sport at all, they are on the outside of the physical contact and have no part in it. The risk they accept is that they may be injured through an accidental contact (such as Bentham's broken leg), but they should not be deliberately exposed to the risk of injury through the actions of some brainless Neanderthal who has a Luis Suarez type tendency to make contact with them because he feels like it.

Unfortunately from your POV the contact was minimal, 'play like' albeit stupid and immature. The referee was never going to be hurt but it was WRONG.

Equally WRONG is that players are now placing their hand on referees when communicating with them, sometime putting their arm around the referee. If you are Wellens, Wilkin, Sinfield then getting in the face of a referee, putting your hand on a referee is deemed ok.

The RFL cannot have one rules for X players and another for Z players. I captained umpteen teams, I verbally challenged umpteen referees BUT I never put a hand on a match official or swore at him. It was black and white that such offences were not tolerated but at pro level with the likes of J.Sharp advocating referees develop 'relationships' with players everything is now gray!

For being stupid and an infantile prank Goz hock had no defence but he should be no different to Wellens, Wilkin and Sinfield or anybody. It should not matter who does it.

I still stand by my other argument. A referee got pushed other in a crazy harmless but wrong prank is seen as 3 times as bad as players trying to hurt opponents and damage their career / livelihood. THAT IS AS WRONG as Hock.

[cpwigan]

There are some people who feel the need to defend a player like hock despite the fact he does nothing to earn this its not poor badly done to hock, he is the one who keeps making these choices.

No one forced him to put hands on a referee the first time
no one forced him to take cocaine
no one forced him to put hands on a referee again
no one forced him to break the rules in the england camp
no one forced him to send the ref flying in this game

these are his choices, and he clearly is going to continue making them incorrectly.

As for the punishment not fitting the crime - irrelavent IMO - in fact if anything it just makes his actions harder to defend, how easy is this DONT TOUCH THE REF, regardless of what others are doing you dont do it!.

People zone in on poor mr hock and the world out to get him, well, the way others are punished for the same actions again IMO is irrelavent the FACT is that if he played by the rules he wouldnt get a single ban so they are all 100% HIS FAULT.

Agree. I'm sick and tired of people saying "he needs help etc. etc." I'm specifically referring to Baz and Taz on Boots n All.
He has an apalling record stretching back over a number of years now and as had every chance to redeem himself and grow up.
Enough is enough.

See my previous post but your post lacks any realisation as to what the reality is in modern sport.

No one forced him to put hands on a referee the first time and No one forced him to put hands on a referee again

is becoming more and more common but ignored if your name is Wellens, Wilkin or Sinfield.

The RFL has through lack off action condoned and accepted players touching referees. The infantile prank tackle was his own choice but the RFL set the trend. The 'rules' for pro players have become seemingly different than for 'amateurs'

no one forced him to break the rules in the england camp You are right but EQUALLY why then did the RFL not treat EVERYBODY (IIRC there were 8 incl Hock who did that) exactly the same. We all know why, they wanted ascapegoat to set an example whilst not doing the right thing and treating everybody the same.

We have a current player whose 'history' is not far different than that of Hock.

[Wigan_forever1985]

Cp I'm not arguing with the fact that in the England camp or indeed with the referees the punishments have been inconsistent. However your again neglecting how much control hock has over his own actions.

I once had a run in with my boss and as such I was subject to heavy scrutinisation for a number of months, so I made sure that I would give him no reason to be able to have anything on me. That means if others were taking more than 30mins for their dinner that was allowed I came back, was it wrong that they went unpunished a I would have YES, but I'm an adult and there was a simple way for me to stay out of trouble by following the rules 100% regardless of others

The old adage if everyone was jumping off a cliff would you?, I would hazard a guess the following a crowd is a big part of gaz hocks problem.

I hate this notion that just because of what's happening to others it somehow gives you the right to expect to be not punished yourself.

I also don't agree with the "playful" notion you keep suggesting, Gareth hock is a large heavy extremely powerful man capable of smashing men who are 18st of pure muscle, even at 30% power he has the potential to injure a man of half his size and strength. The refs head jolts back as he hit the floor potentially could of caused whiplash. I know no injury was caused but you can't use that as a mitigating factor, that's like not punishing a spear tackle because their neck wasn't broke

[cpwigan]

I cannot argue the fact that Hock lacks the self discipline that you clearly showed. It is frustrating to people like myself who enjoy watching the good side of Gaz Hock that he fails to learn from mistakes. Some of us do, I haven't at times and to quote Oscar Wilde "to make a mistake once is human, to make the same mistake twice is foolish" Gaz Hock was not the first, nor will he be the last. I am an unashamed fan of George Best and you could argue never was there a bigger fool. Nor did it stop him making a huge impact upon the sporting world.

The Hock 'tackle'. IMO, it was a spur of the moment event. He was running through clearly deviated but then the ducking head etc, the lack of effort/energy highlights how it was such a stupid yet infantile joke. If a players wanted to hurt a referee then they would.

[AlanF]

I cannot argue the fact that Hock lacks the self discipline that you clearly showed. It is frustrating to people like myself who enjoy watching the good side of Gaz Hock that he fails to learn from mistakes. Some of us do, I haven't at times and to quote Oscar Wilde "to make a mistake once is human, to make the same mistake twice is foolish" Gaz Hock was not the first, nor will he be the last. I am an unashamed fan of George Best and you could argue never was there a bigger fool. Nor did it stop him making a huge impact upon the sporting world.

The Hock 'tackle'. IMO, it was a spur of the moment event. He was running through clearly deviated but then the ducking head etc, the lack of effort/energy highlights how it was such a stupid yet infantile joke. If a players wanted to hurt a referee then they would.

:eusa17: :eusa17: :eusa17:

[i'm spartacus]

I still stand by my other argument. A referee got pushed other in a crazy harmless but wrong prank is seen as 3 times as bad as players trying to hurt opponents and damage their career / livelihood. THAT IS AS WRONG as Hock.

I don't think you are getting the point cp to be honest. The referee isn't playing the game and by hitting him deliberately, it exposes him to a risk he did not accept, and plainly and simply it deserves greater punishment.

If you like the contest to two boxers banging away at one another; both of them are running the risk of injury which they both accept as part and parcel of the sport. One of them may act outside the rules, like biting half of the other guys ear off, but the rules make allowances for acting outside the rules and impose sanctions on the offender.

If one of the boxers was to deliberately stick one on the referee, the chances are he would never box again because the referee has nothing to do with the actual contest.

The punishment has nothing to do with the potential for injury. The punishment is tied to the fact that the player accepts he may get injured through a deliberate contact he's exposed himself to during the game. The referee hasn't accepted a risk of injury through deliberate contact and if a player deliberately hits him, he deserves all he gets.