Agreed. I'll be intrigued to hear his explanation for what appeared a very strange action, if he wasn't intending to poke Harrison in the eye/s what was his intention?

6 months.

It wasn't a lazy arm - he had 2 goes and his fingers bent in too.

Tosspot.

This.

The RFL will probably give them another player and pay their wages.

As I wrote in the equivalent thread on the Wigan board...

Gouging8 game ban[/i

Like I said with the biting incident, if someone can't be trusted with teeth take them from them.

If someone has no respect for someones sight - hand over yours. Saying that it may make Hocks Barclaycarding of his coke a little trickier.

Should be at least 9 weeks, but has Redhall the cojones?

Shows our pathetic the Wigan Warriors are. Maguire thinks both low life scum Hock and ratboy will be both be available next weekend.

Was Briers banned for his kicking of the ball out of Senior's hand a few years ago?

It's dangerous play, but I'd have thought it would be fine dealt with on the field. I can't see any reason for Tomkins not to be available next week.

Haven't seen the Hock incident. Anyone well-known-video-streaming-sited it yet?

Not seen it myself either, but discussion on the Wigan forum is that he's done it, and deserves an 8 week ban plus whatever the RFL think is appropriate. We're all pretty p***ed off with him to be honest, especially as he was one of our better players yesterday.

What's the RFL's stance on selecting players for international duty that are serving club suspensions?

Five games effectively finishes his season whatever the permutations and costs him a potential Grand Final appearance. I'd hope the RFL would view that as an absolute minimum punishment.

Incidentally, did yesterday signal the end of the eight-point try as an option for referees?

What about the transmission of Hepititis ?

Can anyone remember any team playing a player with said virus and then not mentioning it for a while ?

I think that was the right decision by Silverwood. There was only a couple of minutes remaining and had he produced a red card that automatically reduces the severity of the imposed ban by 1 match due to the sending off.

I'm not saying that's what he was thinking at the time, but it worked out better.

Exactly. As for the person above who paraphrased me and tried to indicate I suggested that bites are worse than gouging, please re-read what I said, I said that the RFL are right to consider it as an equal disciplinary issue.

If yesterday's incident had happened in the NCL then Hock would most likely be looking at a Sine Die ban. It was only a few years ago that Brighouse were booted out of the Conference for playing a ringer who then went on to gouge an opponent. That player was banned Sine Die at the subsequent disciplinary.

What is so despicable about gouging is that it runs a very real risk of permanently depriving somebody of a sensory function. In my opinion it is much worse than biting.

Many RL fans, including non-Wigan fans, would consider it harsh if Hock receieved an indefinite ban, but how would we all feel the Ben Harrison had been blinded by Hock's mindless thuggery?

With regards to Silverwood, I know I'm biased but I wouldn't be too harsh on him, and I don't for one minute think that his failure to send Hock off was due to the length of time remaining, or that he chickened out of a big decision. I think if he had seen the view we have all had the benefit of via SKY slow-mo then it would have been the easiest decision he'd ever had to make. It's hard to spot it in real-time - at first I though he'd given the Warrington player a facial followed by a cheap shot.