Page 9 of 12
Re: Gaz Hock
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:39 pm
by cpwigan
Oh well I daresay we will have to take it on the chin. Internationally? not a chance now.
Re: hock's ban
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:35 pm
by Kittwazzer
If the panel accepted it was a gouge, he's got of lightly. Still, he missed out on Wembley and he can't make GF. That is probably the biggest punishment. Hope he learns from it!
Re: Gaz Hocks got
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:44 pm
by DaveO
gillysmyhero wrote:4 for Gouging and 1 for the punch.I think he's been very lucky.
I agree. Minimum ban for the gouging which probably takes account of the fact it was more dangerous play than a "Fletcher".
Re: hock's ban
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:50 pm
by Panchitta Marra
Could have done without this especially with the injury to Moose.
Re: hock's ban
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:26 pm
by DaveO
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.
Re: Gaz Hocks got
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:33 pm
by pie eater and proud of it
exile in Tiger country wrote:pie eater and proud of it wrote:Bah.
Stupid stupid stupid Gareth.
Stupid stupid stupid Red Hall. Obviously have no concept of what constitutes an eye gouge.
Eh ? :conf:
Re: hock's ban
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:38 pm
by the winky one
DaveO wrote: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.
So we've been p****d on from a great height again eh?
I'm sorry, I don't condone this kind of thing at all
but other players seem to get away with worse on a
regular basis :eusa15: :eusa15: I'm fuming!!
Re: Gaz Hock
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:38 pm
by i'm spartacus
5 match ban.... He really does have to learn some self control....4 for the gouge...1 for the following uppercut
Re: Gaz Hock
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:55 pm
by widdenoldboy
I think that Harrison's mild response with a bit of a push indicates that he didn't think it too serious and Hock seemed suprised to be pushed and reacted badly with a punch perhaps indicates that he didn't know what he had done. TV indicates a reckless grapple tacklewith contact around the eyes, hence the 4 matches?
Re: Gaz Hocks got
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:16 am
by Nezza Faz
exile in Tiger country wrote:pie eater and proud of it wrote:Bah.
Stupid stupid stupid Gareth.
Stupid stupid stupid Red Hall. Obviously have no concept of what constitutes an eye gouge.
Not sure what you mean to say - he pleaded
GUILTY to both charges - and club not happy with him, reading Madge's thoughts.
Had been well looked after by the Club over last couple of years, so can't imagine Lenigan too happy at the way he's paid him back.
As others post - think a fairly lenient sentence.