WiganWarriorsFans.com

the winky one wrote: 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!!

Given the way the panel works (and also because he was really rather stupid to do it) I think we are lucky he didn't get the full 9.

It is an appropriate sentence. The RFL and Hock admitted reckless conduct. Neither the RFL decided it nor did Hock say it was deliberate so intent was not determined hence why the ban was 4 and not 4+

cpwigan wrote:It is an appropriate sentence. The RFL and Hock admitted reckless conduct. Neither the RFL decided it nor did Hock say it was deliberate so intent was not determined hence why the ban was 4 and not 4+

Agree 100% with your summary, cp.

Probably blown any chance of 4-Nations because of it, if enough matches were accountable, depending on Wigan's play-off fortunes.

Stupid thing do, and the right punishment. If it'd been seen by the ref on the day it would have been a red card as well.

Stupid thing to do and possibly jeopardises our bid to retain our title at Old Trafford.

It's a consistent pattern of behaviour from him isn't it?

Banned for fighting, banned for grabbing a ref, banned for taking cocaine and now banned near-gouging.

Some people in life are reactive - the red mist comes down and thats it. Consequence and proportion all go out of the window. I think GH is one of them. Just don't spill his pint in the pub......... :eh:

weststand-rich wrote:It's a consistent pattern of behaviour from him isn't it?

Banned for fighting, banned for grabbing a ref, banned for taking cocaine and now banned near-gouging.

Some people in life are reactive - the red mist comes down and thats it. Consequence and proportion all go out of the window. I think GH is one of them. Just don't spill his pint in the pub......... :eh:

That was a ludicrous decision though, he simply put his hand on Smiths' arm, a complete overreaction to call it attacking a ref. The one think I like about Hock , apart from his ability, is the fact that he doesn't give penalties away for stupid minor offences such as lying on in the tackle as does Farrell and numerous others, at least it's a punch generally.

Enforcers have that unpredictable edge and when you are signing one or have one in your team you have to expext lots of disciplinary issues.

Trouble is Hock can take being an enforcer to a whole new level, Wane and Madge need to curb him a little, nothing wrong in being an enforcer but stupidity we do not need.

Smarten him up a touch and we have a star for both club and country, come on Gaz get the balance right for next year!

And......... he pleaded guilty to both charges I believe.

ian.birchall wrote:

weststand-rich wrote:It's a consistent pattern of behaviour from him isn't it?

Banned for fighting, banned for grabbing a ref, banned for taking cocaine and now banned near-gouging.

Some people in life are reactive - the red mist comes down and thats it. Consequence and proportion all go out of the window. I think GH is one of them. Just don't spill his pint in the pub......... :eh:

That was a ludicrous decision though, he simply put his hand on Smiths' arm, a complete overreaction to call it attacking a ref. The one think I like about Hock , apart from his ability, is the fact that he doesn't give penalties away for stupid minor offences such as lying on in the tackle as does Farrell and numerous others, at least it's a punch generally.

I have noted other palyers grabbing refs arms since and nothing happens. Odd inconsistency.

I do like your logic though - when Hock goes it's brain explosion and it's never trivial!

We'll do well next year if rumours are to be believed - we could simultabneously sub Hock and Luaki at 22 minutes to come up with a penalty bonanza.

merged duplicate threads into one