I guess the RFL were in a good mood today, he should think himself lucky it was only 4 matches for the gouging.

Case Number:

Name:

Gareth Hock
Age
28yrs
Club and shirt number:

Wigan 34
Match:

Warrington v Wigan
Competition and Date:

Super League 4th September, 2011
Details of allegation:

Gouging and Punching in the 80th minute ( Harrison )
Decision:

Refer to tribunal
Details of Charge / Reason for NFA:

Rule: 15.1 (i)
Detail: Behaviour contrary to the true spirit of the game-Gouging
Grade E

Rule 15.1 (a)
Detail: Strikes-Punching-Lashing out
Grade A

Normal Range of Sanctions in relation to Charged Grade:
4 to 8 matches

SOS/NFA/ 1 match
Date of Disciplinary Committee:
6th September, 2011
Evidence provided:
DVD and Officials Report
DECISION ON CHARGE
Player plea:
Pleads Guilty to both charges.
Summary of CM’s
submissions on the Charge / evidence:
The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in approximately the 80th minute of the Match. You were placed on report following this incident. The Panel considered whether you had gouged the eyes of an opponent (Harrison) and believed that you made unnecessary contact with his eyes or eye area. The Panel believed that there was no need for you to make contact with your opponent’s face as the tackle had been completed. The Panel believed that this action was contrary to the true spirit of the game and that his action had the potential to cause serious injury to the eyes of your opponent

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade E offence (Gouging). If found to have committed the offence, again in accordance with the On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the normal suspension range for such offence is from a 4 match suspension to a 8 match suspension. In addition the Tribunal has the power to impose such fine as it considers reasonable.

I will not be requesting that Disciplinary Tribunal step outside of the Sentencing Guidelines. However the Tribunal may, in the light of any aggravating and mitigating factors they consider appropriate, impose a higher penalty.

The Panel then reviewed an incident which followed on directly from the one described above. In the Panel’s opinion you punched the same opponent in a violent manner. The Panel believed that this behaviour was serious misconduct, against the spirit of the game, and that your punch had the potential to cause injury.

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such an offence is a Grade A offence (Strikes – Punching – Lashing Out). If found to have committed the offence, again in accordance with the On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the normal suspension range for such offence is from no further action to a 1 match suspension. In addition the Tribunal has the power to impose such fine as it considers reasonable.

Again, I will not be requesting that Disciplinary Tribunal step outside of the Sentencing Guidelines. However the Tribunal may, in the light of any aggravating and mitigating factors they consider appropriate, impose a higher penalty.

In presenting both these Charges to the Tribunal, I intend to rely on a recording of the Match.

Summary of Player’s submissions on the Charge / evidence:
Player accompanied by Assistant Head coach Shaun Wane. Assistant coach believes this was totally out of character for Gareth Hock. The club take a firm stance on such issues. The player insists there was no intention to make direct contact with the eyes of the opponent. Player contends that contact was made with the head of the opponent, but that contact with the eyes was unintentional. Furthermore, the player was not looking at his opponent when he made contact with his head. Assistant coach believes contact was made with the eyes but again it was unintentional. Player adds that he was looking for a lever to assist him getting to his feet and as soon as he felt his opponents eyes he removed his hand immediately.Both the player and coach do no contest the punching incident and accept that this was unacceptable behaviour.
Decision:
Guilty plea
Reasons for Decision:

DECISION ON SANCTION (where found to have committed Misconduct)

Summary of CM’s submissions on the appropriate sanction:
No additional submissions
Summary of Player’s submissions on the appropriate sanction:
Player has played numerous matches and has never appeared before the tribunal for an incident of this kind. Furthermore the assistant coach comments that this is very out of character and was not anintentionally attempt to gouge the eyes of his opponent. Furthermore the player has been out of the game for two years and is still adapting to his re-entry into the game.
Aggravating Factors:

Potential to cause serious injury.

Mitigating Factors:

Guilty plea.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee accept that the action was not a deliberate attempt to gouge the opponents eyes. 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

Think he got off likely, after the faith Wigan put in him, he has let everyone down. Aussies are always looking for thug front rowers, hope Madge takes him with him.

I thought eye gouging or a poke in the eye often hurts yet if you look at the clip Harrison was not in any pain or even knew he had a finger across hes eye. why? Because no finger was inserted in Harrison's eye come on the first thing anyone does when any pain in the eye is to put your hand up to your eye to feel the amount of damage done and Harrison knows that Hock did not hurt him one bit in the eye department. I am all for banning on eye gouging but come on this boils down to an agenda towards Hock lets be fair,

I can only assume you have not seen the incident.

Given that the panel have adjudged the offence reckless, rather than pre-meditated or intentional the suspension is spot on and directly in line with the sentencing guidelines. 4 Matches is about right. As for punching, players at amateur level regularly get 4 games for throwing a punch whereas professional players, I would say, are banned usually no more than 1 game and only for about 10% of the offences committed. My guess is that without the other offence there would have been no ban for punching. Stupid mistake by the player, punishment handed out accordingly, hysterical trolls/'sack him' knee-jerk Wigan fans move on.

apprently ben harrison stood up for mr HOCK and said he didnt go for my eyes,, it was an accident he never felt a thing near his eyes,, fair play to ben i say for sticking up for HOCK.. todays news will be tomorrows chippy paper.. HOCKS gone now for season.. lets get behind THOSE still PLAYIN ,, COME ON WIGAN,,

The Committee accept that the action was not a deliberate attempt to gouge the opponents eyes <<<<<< SAYS IT ALLS.. let it rest now eh,?????

A grade E offence carries a ban of 4-8 games so as there was no injury inflicted to the letter of the law 4 games plus 1 for the punch looks to be about right anyway, that'll do so much for "he'll be like a new signing" see you next year you fool

Your joking right?

Have you read Ben Harrison's take on it??

Guessing you missed the pain written all over his face then?

Well that is probably because he didn't cause more discomfort given Harrison's lack of reaction. So I think 4 is about right. What Whitehead got is irrelevant because it wasn't the same offence and if 5 was too much for that then that is a different matter.



It's going to be very hard to argue lack of consistency since gouging is such a rare offence but as has been mentioned earlier, Hock's ban is the same as that given to someone last season for the same offence. How is that inconsistent? You can argue it was too lenient but not inconsistent.

EDIT: and just saw this above : "The Committee accept that the action was not a deliberate attempt to gouge the opponents eyes. "

4 is definitely right if that is their view.

well said..

Hock's ban is the same as that given to someone last season for the same offence. How is that inconsistent? You can argue it was too lenient but not inconsistent.

Yes but with Liam Prescott last year the report states

"In deciding sanction the committee have taken into account this players previous good record and the submissions made on his behalf. If this players record had not been commendable the sanction imposed would have been more."

can the same be said for hock?