Point is though, lenient or not, thats his season done with, and if his absence from the team ultimately costs Wigan the defence of their Title, then that will be an even more costly penalty. Perhaps Wigan's hierarchy should learn from this and tell certain members of their squad (mentioning no names of course!!!!!), to start focusing on the rugby and cut out the daft stuff. Because ultimately it's the team that will suffer.

Wait till you read the disciplinary hearing record. A laugh a minute, especially the bit under mitigating factors about him still re-adjusting to the game after being out for two years. Oh, and Shaun Wane saying this is 'totally out of character'.

Link?

Gareth Hock
Age
28yrs
Club and shirt number:

Wigan 34
Match:

Warrington v Wigan
Competition and Date:

Super League 4th September, 2011
Details of allegation:

Gouging and Punching in the 80th minute ( Harrison )
Decision:

Refer to tribunal
Details of Charge / Reason for NFA:

Rule: 15.1 (i)
Detail: Behaviour contrary to the true spirit of the game-Gouging
Grade E

Rule 15.1 (a)
Detail: Strikes-Punching-Lashing out
Grade A

Normal Range of Sanctions in relation to Charged Grade:
4 to 8 matches

SOS/NFA/ 1 match
Date of Disciplinary Committee:
6th September, 2011
Evidence provided:
DVD and Officials Report
DECISION ON CHARGE
Player plea:
Pleads Guilty to both charges.
Summary of CM’s
submissions on the Charge / evidence:
The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in approximately the 80th minute of the Match. You were placed on report following this incident. The Panel considered whether you had gouged the eyes of an opponent (Harrison) and believed that you made unnecessary contact with his eyes or eye area. The Panel believed that there was no need for you to make contact with your opponent’s face as the tackle had been completed. The Panel believed that this action was contrary to the true spirit of the game and that his action had the potential to cause serious injury to the eyes of your opponent

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade E offence (Gouging). If found to have committed the offence, again in accordance with the On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the normal suspension range for such offence is from a 4 match suspension to a 8 match suspension. In addition the Tribunal has the power to impose such fine as it considers reasonable.

I will not be requesting that Disciplinary Tribunal step outside of the Sentencing Guidelines. However the Tribunal may, in the light of any aggravating and mitigating factors they consider appropriate, impose a higher penalty.

The Panel then reviewed an incident which followed on directly from the one described above. In the Panel’s opinion you punched the same opponent in a violent manner. The Panel believed that this behaviour was serious misconduct, against the spirit of the game, and that your punch had the potential to cause injury.

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such an offence is a Grade A offence (Strikes – Punching – Lashing Out). If found to have committed the offence, again in accordance with the On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the normal suspension range for such offence is from no further action to a 1 match suspension. In addition the Tribunal has the power to impose such fine as it considers reasonable.

Again, I will not be requesting that Disciplinary Tribunal step outside of the Sentencing Guidelines. However the Tribunal may, in the light of any aggravating and mitigating factors they consider appropriate, impose a higher penalty.

In presenting both these Charges to the Tribunal, I intend to rely on a recording of the Match.

Summary of Player’s submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Player accompanied by Assistant Head coach Shaun Wane. Assistant coach believes this was totally out of character for Gareth Hock. The club take a firm stance on such issues. The player insists there was no intention to make direct contact with the eyes of the opponent. Player contends that contact was made with the head of the opponent, but that contact with the eyes was unintentional. Furthermore, the player was not looking at his opponent when he made contact with his head. Assistant coach believes contact was made with the eyes but again it was unintentional. Player adds that he was looking for a lever to assist him getting to his feet and as soon as he felt his opponents eyes he removed his hand immediately.Both the player and coach do no contest the punching incident and accept that this was unacceptable behaviour.
Decision:
Guilty plea
Reasons for Decision:

DECISION ON SANCTION (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM’s submissions on the appropriate sanction:
No additional submissions
Summary of Player’s submissions on the appropriate sanction:
Player has played numerous matches and has never appeared before the tribunal for an incident of this kind. Furthermore the assistant coach comments that this is very out of character and was not anintentionally attempt to gouge the eyes of his opponent. Furthermore the player has been out of the game for two years and is still adapting to his re-entry into the game.
Aggravating Factors:

Potential to cause serious injury.

Mitigating Factors:

Guilty plea.
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.
Suspension:
5 matches (4 for Gouging and 1 for Striking)
Fine:
£300

Thanks, it's on the Wigan forum as well now.

Most of that seems fairly sensible but...




...his bit gets me - it seems to be completely fabricated. He clearly dragged his head backwards with some force - did they bother watching the video.

Regardless of this decision, which followed the current sentencing guidelines, 4-8 matches is woefully inadequate for eye gouging. That needs reviewing.

Yesterday I'd've agreed. Unfortunately, following TVOC & G1's reminiscing, I replayed the Leeds v Widnes classic mentioned on another thread. In that context, I'm now of the opinion that the penalty awarded against Hock was probably sufficient.

I agree. They've also shown the maximum leniency within their guidelines to a player with a previous disciplinary record and a player who has just returned from dragging the name of the game through the mud.

They're so soft at the RFl I am beginning to wonder if Ian Kirke is in charge of the disciplinary decisions.

£300 fine too, the same as players have been picking up for a 1 match ban for one incident, rather than 5 for two.

I'd like to say the leniency was suprising, but it clearly wasn't.

Wonder what David Howell would have picked up for gouging and punching, bearing in mind he copped 6 matches for a bite in a non-Wigan shirt?

Changes nothing. Punching and associated biff is part of the game (provided it's man-to-man). There are lines to be drawn though, and attacking the eyes crosses that line. That Leeds v Widnes game was also riddled with cheap shots which I don't miss. I do miss the biff, but sticking your fingers in the eyes of a prone player is not biff.

I was writing tongue-in-cheek. Gouging is despicable. I'm less than thrilled by third tacklers driving at knees of players who are already held, a modern cheap shot that seems to attract little in the way of punishment.

Totally agree, Lima is a prime culprit who I believe has already been warned twice for this by the RFL & Tommy Leuluai (who otherwise I rate as a great player).
Tony Smith doesn't think much of it either.

The sad thing is, it will end rlhere.rl And then it'll be too late to do anything about it.

A lad I used to work with lost the site in one eye after a gouging incident.

On a lighter noteI have golf clubs that cost more than that."

Bet you wouldn't hear that in RL!