Re: Hock : Sun May 27, 2012 9:05 pm  

St pete wrote:

Only one player will be getting a lengthy ban after causing that brawl and it's Gaz Hock. His record of 2 year ban for drugs, gouging, pushing ref and all the other things he's done wont help.

If Magennis has hit him from behind then it's wrong, if your going to fight with someone then at least have the guts to stand toe to toe.

At the end of the day we ain't going to miss Magennis as he's basically rubbish and should be shipped out ASAP but I've a feeling you men will miss gaz hock a little more.

we didnt miss HOCK when he got sent of with 20 odd mins to go,,, just shows how crap your team really is now, anyone but HOCK.. and nothing would have been said,,, get over HOCK.. and start worrying about your own players,,,

Re: Hock : Sun May 27, 2012 9:07 pm  

goobervision wrote:

Hock pushing the ref? Nope, grabbed his arm to complain about something.

And going on your logic, you could lose most of the team and not miss them.

G

If your looking for a heated debate then you've found the wrong person, I know our team isnt very good, I've been saying for past 2yrs

Re: Hock : Sun May 27, 2012 9:07 pm  

SomersetSaint wrote:

Drug cheating vermin. Once scum always scum. Get him out of tge game, forever.

Sounds like a perfect description of Sean Long.

In fairness there are a few bad boys about in our sport but it isn't a game for cherubic faced choir boys really is it.

Can you tell me honestly that you would not like to see him playing for Saints? If you say "No" I think there will be a few more than me who wouldn't believe you.

Pity it happened as it just became a bad tempered affair after the scrap and would have been better all round if they had all been given 10 minutes to cool down and then got on with it

Re: Hock : Sun May 27, 2012 9:11 pm  

wiganboy wrote:

we didnt miss HOCK when he got sent of with 20 odd mins to go,,, just shows how crap your team really is now, anyone but HOCK.. and nothing would have been said,,, get over HOCK.. and start worrying about your own players,,,

Think you did you idiot; look at the score after he went including the LMS try. You just didn't miss him enough because you had already won the game.

Re: Hock : Sun May 27, 2012 9:14 pm  

OJ wrote:

Sounds like a perfect description of Sean Long.

In fairness there are a few bad boys about in our sport but it isn't a game for cherubic faced choir boys really is it.

Can you tell me honestly that you would not like to see him playing for Saints? If you say "No" I think there will be a few more than me who wouldn't believe you.

Pity it happened as it just became a bad tempered affair after the scrap and would have been better all round if they had all been given 10 minutes to cool down and then got on with it

I woukdnt think twice about taking hock, he's a great player and one of the players I enjoy watching the most in super league but he's a loose cannon and at times can be a liability.

I've nothing against him doing big shots and getting stuck in and also like the fact he will join in and help his mates but he does silly stuff that he just don't need to do.

Re: Hock : Sun May 27, 2012 9:21 pm  

St pete wrote:

I woukdnt think twice about taking hock, he's a great player and one of the players I enjoy watching the most in super league but he's a loose cannon and at times can be a liability.

I've nothing against him doing big shots and getting stuck in and also like the fact he will join in and help his mates but he does silly stuff that he just don't need to do.

No arguments there St Pete, I agree with you. I'm just not a fan of folk calling others scum and the like - one thing is certain they wouldn't do it to his face

Re: Hock : Sun May 27, 2012 9:22 pm  

St pete wrote:

I woukdnt think twice about taking hock, he's a great player and one of the players I enjoy watching the most in super league but he's a loose cannon and at times can be a liability.

I've nothing against him doing big shots and getting stuck in and also like the fact he will join in and help his mates but he does silly stuff that he just don't need to do.

I like the reference to "silly stuff".

Sorry pete he is a thug and past proven / found guilty drug cheat - end of; and we don't need or want a thug no matter how good he is when he is behaving himself.

Gleeson was a "great player" as well but we got shut of him.

Re: Hock : Sun May 27, 2012 9:52 pm  

OJ wrote:

No arguments there St Pete, I agree with you. I'm just not a fan of folk calling others scum and the like - one thing is certain they wouldn't do it to his face

He is scum. I wouldn't say it to his face without reason as I'm a better person than him. He's a ticking timebomb and you know it.

Re: Hock : Sun May 27, 2012 9:57 pm  

OJ wrote:

No arguments there St Pete, I agree with you. I'm just not a fan of folk calling others scum and the like - one thing is certain they wouldn't do it to his face

I'd love to say it to his face if he gave me reason to. That's not to say I wouldn't probably end up face down on the pavement, as I undoubtedly would if he took offence. But to say people wouldn't say it to his face isn't true.

Re: Hock : Sun May 27, 2012 10:00 pm  

Am i missing something but what did Hock do that was so bad?

Punch ups at the scrum between two forwards have been regular things for as long as Rugby League has been played. There should of been no sending off and both Hock and Scarsbrook should of been sent to the sin bin to cool off.

It really is just because it was Hock isnt it? The same Saints fans who are calling for him to be banned for life probably loved Sonny Nickle and Vila Matuatia.