Don't come on here talking utter sense. The Clampetts will be waving their pitchforks again.

Howell got 6 for biting, it should be considerable more, we'll see.

I couldn't believe that a professional Rugby League player would be stupid enough to take cocaine the day before a game. Gareth Hock showed be different but I know what you mean.

6-8 games is enough. It's getting on for 1/3 of a regular season if he gets the harsher ban.

I'd give him 8. There are doubts that it was a premeditated attack, but everyone has eyes on the front of their heads and players have a responsibilty to fellow players. Big black mark on his disciplinary sheet aswell for consideration during any future visits to the disciplinary board.

8 matches for gouging, plus one for striking (because gouging wasn't enough for Mr Hock)

Why do people think that Hock should get 8 games when, as I've already posted on this thread, another player was found guilty of the same offence last season and received a 4 match ban ?

I don't know about Hock, but my fingers are pretty sensitive. If I stand behind someone and place my hand over their face the two big sockets that I can feel tend to indicate that my fingers are over their eyes.

when is the hearing? cant wait to read the wording around his plea....

[iThe player explained about the techniques that they are coached and that they have individual reviews of opponents. They were briefed that Harrison has recently had a bad ear injury. The Intention was to tackle the player without causing any further damage to the players ear. During the tackle, the player (harrison) thrust his eyeballs out towards the fingers of Gareth Hock, creating the impression of gouging. The player was infact trying to protect the ear in the tackle.

Mr Maguire reiterated that Hock's priority was to prevent any further damage to the ear. Mr Maguire encourages his players to ensure the safety of opponents and in this instance Hock ensured that harrison's ear was OK. Shaun Wane also added that there was no "undue pressure on the eyeballs".[/i

Probably because bans of 1-2 games are the norm, 4 game ban is considered very serious, the obviously feel over 8 is too severe for potentially causing permanent eye damage and believe such a ban would impact England in the tri -nations. It would also seem they deem taking a recreational drug far more serious than attempting to insert your fingers into somebody's eye sockets.

Those that have suggested his actions were not deliberate take another look, after initial contact with the eyes sockets he did not remove his hand if anything it is after that point his fingers appear to probe the eye socket. Do not believe his actions were pre-meditated but I do think they were deliberate and was fully aware of what he was doing.

I hope the panel give him a load of lines.....


oh wait

Yes, but a London Skolars player was found guilty of deliberate eye gouging and got a 4 game ban so why should Hock get 8 ? We all talk about consistency in the game so surely the disciplinary should be consistent here. The fact that the initial ban for the Skolars player could be considered light is another matter, but the fact is that it set a precedent. Or are SL players eyes more sensitive than those of a Championship 1 player ?

you get a reducted punishment if you have a previously good disciplinary record, Hock has a terrible record so should get a heavy punishment if found guilty

the panel will take into account his previous record.

Just been on BBC GMR he is out for rest of the season. Fool.

5 games for both offences.... ends his season so its probably enough.