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.

6 for Howell though, compared to 5, hmm.

I think the minimum ban is VERY lenient.
I always though previous record influenced the length of the ban.
27/04/08 - 1 match ban for punching.
05/07/08 - 5 match ban for manhandling referee.
So a player who has been banned for a total 6 matches since 2008, despite being banned from June 2009-June 2011, gets the minimum ban.
He's a VERY lucky boy.

viewtopic.php?f=134&t=507334 Hock and McGoldrick both cop season ending bans (unless Cas do something special)

viewtopic.php?f=134&t=507334 Hock and McGoldrick both cop season ending bans (unless Cas do something special)