If you punched somebody that was unconscious on the ground, and the police saw it, provoked or not, your getting arrested and charged.

The law defines it as excessive force.

The target was already neutralized. You never do a man on the deck. He'd have been charged on the street and rightly so.

In the space of about 2 seconds he threw 2 punches. It's not as if he threw the first, admired his handiwork and then followed up with another. He punched once, immediately dived on his attacker and punched again.

I was pretty horrified by it but I think the fact that it was on national telly at a showpiece event causing way more controversy than would be usual is the saddest thing about it. I say this with the knowledge that the 'victim' has tried to brush it off and has forgiven it. Lance elbowed him in the mush and the first 'standing' punch is almost universally accepted as legit by people in RL. I have some sympathy with Barnacle Bill's point about the speed at which it happened - a massive rush of blood, against the rules, stupid etc but punishment should stay within the sport in my opinion.

Anything outside what one could reasonably expect as a part of RL could not have been consented to as part of the rules of the sport. Things that happen on the field arent outside the law, simply affected by it.

This has been considered by GMP. I have no doubt that a very strong argument could be made for prosecuting Flower on the point of law. I have no doubt that if Hohaia had said he wanted it moving forward it would have done.

I question right now the point of doing so and with no one wanting to, i cant see that it will.

Are those calling for some sort of criminal action, doing so on the basis that he has committed an offence which is outside of the guidelines of the sport?.... If so, it sets a dangerous precedent for ALL sports, not just RL.

Take boxing, a sport which, arguably, is based on controlled violence.... Any breach of that 'control', a punch below the belt, a punch after the bell, leading with the head, etc, could easily be construed as an assault similar to Flower's on Saturday night.

Flower's was a moment of madness, but it was a moment that happens occasionally in sport.... Personally, I wouldn't like any sportsman to be put in any court and judged by anybody, with no experience of what its like to have the adrenaline flowing in a high pressure sporting situation and that's what we risk exposing Flower to.

Anyone condoning this needs to have a think if this was your son playing and this happened to him what course of action would you take?.....would you be saying its a rugby incident.

I for one think it should be a season ban.

yes plenty of punches are thrown on game day but that was a blatant punch on someone not attempting to defend himself. These are trained athletes who should be able to control there aggression.

"Anyone condoning this"

It's like people manage to browse this forum with their eyes shut.

Prosecuting a player through the legal system isn't unheard of in RL. Ellery Hanley once took action against Andy Dannett after having his jaw broken by a punch in a Hull v Leeds fixture.

I'd have been very confident that Hohai too would have gone down the same route if he'd received any injuries which required an operation and lengthy recovery time.

Just a point on all this "Hohia had the first punch coming, he was the aggressor" business - can I assume that everyone saying that is absolutely certain that the first act of aggression wasn't what I thought I saw - namely Flower swinging his arm into the back of Hohia's head as he ran past? It's just if we're going to go defending any action shouldn't it really be the little guy who got slotted by a cowardly shot on the back of the head by a much bigger man and then, quite understandably, went after him?

I only ask because reading some of the nonsense on here you'd think that Hohia just decided out of nowhere to attack a prop for no reason and that made the first punch legit.

In short, Flower created the situation, he started it, he finished and there's no cojent reason for defending the first punch - which under current rules is as clear a red card as you're likely to see.

You've obviously forgotten that on here any call for proportionality, rationality, reasonable punishment, compassion, etc. automatically means you condone violence and that Ben Flower should be given a medal.

The police and CPS have said they prefer a sport's disciplinary body to deal with these sorts of incidents. Partly because of the inevitable grey areas, partly because disciplinary bodies can often impose tougher punishments than the courts.

The police and CPS see their role as monitoring the actions taken by disciplinary bodies to be satisfied that they are imposing sufficiently tough punishments. If they're satisfied they decide that its not in the public interest to prosecute.

Hence we have the situation where the police and CPS are having meetings with the RFL and St Helens. It appears that some sort of negotiating process is taking place to decide "what's the minimum ban that Flower should receive to avoid a prosecution?"

Thanks, that seems to be a fairly definitive answer.

You know what? I'm glad it was on national telly. First week in as long as I can remember that people in the office are talking about RL. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating of-the-ball violence as a way of promoting the sport, but it is a pleasant change that RL is the talking point, not some contrived 'scandal' in football because one player looked at another in a funny way.

Were have they said this?

Also, if that's the case, why did Duncan Ferguson get gaoled.