Biting might seem less severe when compared to gouging, but you need to consider that if you successfully break skin, you run a severely high risk of transferring disease. Let's say for example that a player is HIV positive, he might not even know it at the time, that's no reason for him not to play the sport, but it's the kind of thing that can be transferred with such transgressions.

I think the RFL are absolutely right to see it as serious as gouging, it's their classification of bans (4-8games for Grade E, 8+ games for Grade F), which I think probably need to be reviewed.

Hock another cheap shot merchant and coward............

That's nonsense - HIV cannot be spread through saliva and therefore the risk from a bite is actually low. In any case if we're talking about worst cases then eye gouging carries an unacceptably high risk of permanently damaging a persons sight

As someone who's had both a scratched cornea and a broken leg, I can tell you which one is more painful and worrying. And that's just a scratch that healed in a couple of weeks.

These are the Rugby Union sanctions for eye-gouging:

Lower end: up to 12-week ban.
Mid range: up to 18-week ban.
Top end: greater than 24-week ban.
Maximum sanction: 156-week (3 year) ban.

Although I would say, if you can be certain of intent, then there's a case for not allowing eye-gougers onto a sports field ever again.

But the risk is there, and there are other transferrables that can also cause health problems, HIV was just the one that came immediately to mind. Biting another human being is disgusting, but maybe it's just me who looks upon it so unfavourably?



No doubts from me that the act of gouging is barbaric. We're about to find out just how much teeth the current disciplinary model at the RFL actually have. I've now seen a replay of the incident, and I don't believe it to be a deliberate act (Grade F?), but it was certainly careless/reckless, and still has an unacceptably high risk of injury so I expect it to be a Grade E offence and could carry a 4-8 game suspension if he's found guilty by the panel.

I'd follow Julien Dupuy's ban length personally. 26 weeks. So that's make Hock available again sometime around next year's Challenge Cup Final?

The ARL gave Les Boyd 18 months.

Mind you, he came over here and played for Wire

Now this guy is scum.

Without commenting on this specific incident, which I haven't seen, I would favour following the RFU's lead (for once) on this type of incident. 8 weeks is insufficient for deliberate gouging of the eyes.

PMSL at the "biting is worse because of the risk of disease" line. How prevalent is rabies among RL players?

Actually, maybe not so daft......

should recive 8 games for gouging. not only that he followed it up with a forearm smash (or attempted punch) then another punch, even after it had settled he was still mouthing expleatives which could be clearly lip read
how many chances does this kid need?

When someone like Hock has already brought significant disrepute upon the game and had the benefit of the sports indulgence by allowing him back into the fold I think something like this needs the maximum ban permissible.

I also disagree with the poster who didn't think it was intentional. His finger didn't just scrape across the eye. He stuck it in there and pulled Harrison's head back.

No it's not just you. I've 'heard' Evander Holyfield isn't a big fan either.

having only seen it live on an Iphone it looked pretty damm terrible on a small screen