I'm not having a 16 stone (guess) Gareth Hock running at that speed could have stopped or avoided contact. The issue is with the blatant dip of the shoulder.

It looked innocent on the day but the clip looks damning.

I'm inclined to believe he slipped and lost balance after trying to grab for the ball or something in all honesty. Reasons being, Hock has been remarkably well behaved this year with the exception of the London game at the beginning of the season....and more importantly, what reason did he have to go for the ref? There was nothing I can think of that would have even put the thought into his head, we were in front & there were no controversial calls against us unless I missed something?

I think its just a bad camera angle of an unfortunate but innocent incident.

The charge shouldn't even be up for debate. There's some utter lunacy on here.

Well, having finally seen the video, I'm not sure this is as clear cut as some fans of other clubs would like it to be. Having lost the ball, he steps to the right to avoid the Hull player, and finds himself a couple of yards from the referee who is running towards the line he is now running, and who keeps running right up to the point of impact. The referee, who is lighter and has less momentum than Gareth Hock, didn't seem to be able to pull out of the collision either.

Unfortunately, his past behaviour may well count against him here, since he has a bit of previous on the "see...ref...crash...ref" front, but had it been a different player, I'm not convinced people would be so quick to judge.

He's already been convicted and thrown out of RL with regards to Social media. What bothers me here, is that the 'incident' is far from clear cut regardless of opinions. You can't look at it and say for certain, 100% that he's deliberately done something to the ref. It's interesting that on the day nothing was done about it, no 'on report' no decisions. Both sets of fans and clearly the Officials thought nothing of it. The only real reason it's being debated is due to it being Hock. If Hansen, or Ellis or anyone else had done it I guarantee we wouldn't be talking about it now.

Which isn't fair.

A player is being vilified due to his past which is wrong. Regardless of previous, as a Salford fan one of the big plus points with Hock this season is how controlled and uncontroversial he's been. As for dipping his shoulder, he actually dips both forward as he's trying to stay on his feet after moving to the left of the official. Regardless of this, Hock is in the process of trying to retrieve a kicked ball to score. He even gets his hand to it. He then has half a second or so to decide he's going to blast into an official? It's ridiculous. His focus was getting the ball. The half second after that is momentum and physics.

After the Docs remedial action following Nobbygate the whole club is being noticed more (except in Salford it seems) & as we go along more knives will be coming out from RFL, fans and Chairmen alike.

Just think we have to tough it out - Just part of the success to come hopefully.

Not all of you but some are just being silly the evidence was there for all to see yet you are still trying to defend the idiot . Just a couple of points .

1. Neither Tansey or Bailey were sent off either

2. All of you who say how well Hock has behaved this season , well so did a certain Liverpool Footballer for 6 months and then look what happened .

As a self-proclaimed Grammar Nazi, I'm practically foaming at the mouth.

Point for future reference...

If you want to be taken seriously with the points you made, I'd suggest trying to be neutral in your post. Before you've even made any valid points you've already revealed your personal feelings on the matter, therefore making the rest of your post void.

Anyone know when the hearing will take place?

Its not a matter of whether i am neutral or not , the evidence is there to be seen , i will come back on and appologise if he is found not guilty .

I'll agree 100% that he's been very well behaved this season and proved a lot of people wrong so far. However I can't agree that we wouldn't be talking about it if it was another player. Even if it had been Rob Burrow we would still be talking about it as its such a shocking image. Every one who has seen it will have their own opinion and are entitled to express it if done properly. The more I watch it the more I think it was deliberate but on the other hand the more I watch it I don't know why he did it. Put it down to a brain fart or whatever but he's been charged and will have to accept the consequences and I think deep down Gaz will know this.

Depends on who the player was.
Most would've been given the benefit of the doubt

The only video I've seen of the incident is the one linked to in this thread, and the more I watch it, the more I think it's accidental. He's chasing a ball that has been kicked along the ground, so, presumably, his eyes are on the ball. The Hull player retrieves the ball, and Hock changes course, presumably to avoid contact with that player or maybe under the assumption (not unreasonably) that the defender had dived over the ball. At this point, he now finds himself on a collision course with the referee, who is travelling in a path that crosses the one he is now on (let's not forget, the ref is running towards the scene of the collision throughout the duration of that video). For this to have been deliberate, he'd have to have been targetting the referee while the ball was still loose, because I just can't see how he could have changed from looking down and following a loose ball to targetting the ref and positioning himself accordingly in a fraction of a second.

It's all about opinions, I suppose. Ours don't really matter (particularly those of the people who have decided he's guilty because of who he is). The only ones that matter are those of the disciplinary committee, and we'll just have to wait and see.

Of course it matters if you want people to read what you're saying and agree with you. You're providing an opinion from the point of view of the lynch mob, not an impartial observer.