Michael McGuire said he didn't see much in the Hock tackle on Harrison. The Crust munchers, said he hadn't had time to review it. Well he has now and we haven't heard from him. So I suppose he must still think the same.

Case NumberThe Committee accept that the action was not a deliberate attempt to gouge the opponents eyes.[/size 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

I think this puts it to bed

You think that puts it to bed. The rest of us think it just confirms the RFL's lack of balls.



Ridiculous. Completely and utterly in character for Hock and the reason, for me, that it should hev been 8 games, not 4.



So unintentional that, when he realised what he had done, instead of getting to his feet and apologising he punched Harrison on the way up. Yep, really unintentional. Any yet another reason why the RFL are either stupid for believing Hock or a bunch of ball-less sops.

I have a few complaints with this plea, his comments mostly. To start with, I don’t believe that it was “out of character” for Hock, as he has a reputation of being a dirty player.



I don’t believe that for 1 minute, with his team being beaten he was frustrated, and clearly clenches into Harrison’s eyes, yanking his head back in the mean time.



I would be able to accept this had Hock’s hand started on the head, but it goes straight into the eyes, and surely Hock should not be pushing on players heads anyway whilst they’re down?



This doesn’t necessarily mean that he didn’t mean to gouge Harrison.



Somehow, I don’t think that somebody’s eyes should be used as a lever to get up.



For me, his hand stays on Harrison’s face until he (Harrison) moves his head out of the way, and furthermore, Hock stands up and punches him, which somehow doesn't show me that it was unintentional because otherwise he may have apologised for gouging him?

My real issue was with this comment though Furthermore the player has been out of the game for two years and is still adapting to his re-entry into the game.'"

Hock punched Harrison because Harrison pushed Hock, Harrison pushed Hock because of the incident.

Ok