[2015 RWC] Pool C: New Zealand vs. Argentina (20/09/2015)

[RedruthRFC]

The player got less than the minimum for contact with the eye area probably due to mitigation

Something about this really winds me up. To my mind a minimum ban should be exactly that. Rather than reducing ban lengths for contrition and good previous record, why not extend bans for players who have a bad record or fail to show contrition? The number of bans handed out that fall below the lower end makes a mockery of the recommendations.

While I'm ranting, why is this process so cloak and dagger at international level? At club level in England, transcripts of all judgements are published, meaning that players, supporters and even referees can see why such the judgement was reached, which improves their understanding and promotes an impression of openness and honesty.

 

[YoungScud]

http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazon...ecision_Mariano_Galarza_(Argentina)_FINAL.pdf

This is the citing commission's transcript.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Thanks YoungScud, most enlightening. Has this been leaked or are these things in the public realm or archived anywhere?

 

[YoungScud]

It was linked from the RWC site. Baiscally, the citing officer didn't think he intended to gouge but was reckless in going for the head.

 

[Mcfadden]

If he truly believes in his heart of hearts that the sanction is excessive or unwarranted, then he has 48 hours to appeal, from my understanding. I don't know how he could be too aggrieved. He controls the motion of his hand, it didn't 'slip' .. he put his fingers in Retallick's face, and they wouldn't have moved if Retallick hadn't have forced them off. The moment you do that you become fair game for the citing commissioner I reckon, regardless of how mild it is. 9 weeks is generous. Could have been way, way worse.

 

[RedruthRFC]

It was linked from the RWC site. Baiscally, the citing officer didn't think he intended to gouge but was reckless in going for the head.

Yeah, I (skim) read the document. Every player in the world should understand that "it was an accident" is no defence by now. I don't believe he will appeal and would hope that if he does, it is seen as frivolous and suitably punished.

Edit: long may these documents continue to be freely published.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Read the entire thing. Very enlightening, thanks for posting it. I see their point now.
Rules are rules, i know, and i believe in abiding by them.
Having said that, every fiber in my body is telling me this is a bit harsh. Maybe i'm biased.

This part from the script helped me verbalize what i thought

"His head was down and he was not aiming for NZ4’s face. It was a dynamic situation"

Bottom line is

1) It was accidental
2) No one got hurt
3) Argentina didn't get any advantage out of this incident
4) He's out of the world cup

Again, rules are there for a reason, but i can't help feeling the severity of this one is extreme in this case.

I would hate it if in the near future every team starts hiring video reviewers who go through every single possible frame of every camera of every game looking for stuff like this.

 

[ncurd]

1) It was accidental
2) No one got hurt
3) Argentina didn't get any advantage out of this incident
4) He's out of the world cup.

Sorry but points 2-3 have no place in eye gouging cases, it's potential life changing, career ending consequences mean it is punished severely to stop any player getting close to doing it. Point 1 is why it was adjudged lower end.

Point 4 isn't even a point.

 

[Mcfadden]

What, Cruz?

So are you saying you should be allowed to have a go at someone's eyes, and if your team doesn't get any specific advantage from it then it's A-Okay?

Sounds like a wrestling policy. Let's just start wearing brass-knuckles and turn rugby into WWF. Distract the referee and clobber somebody.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Read the entire thing. Very enlightening, thanks for posting it. I see their point now.

Exactly the reason I think these things should be freely available. To my mind it shows that those responsible have acted professionally and within the guidelines they are supplied with.

1) It was accidental
2) No one got hurt
3) Argentina didn't get any advantage out of this incident
4) He's out of the world cup

Again, rules are there for a reason, but i can't help feeling the severity of this one is extreme in this case.

All IMO of course:

1) As I said above, this isn't a defence any more, rather like accidentally dropping a vulnerable player in the tackle isn't.
2) I really don't agree with this way of thinking although I appreciate that it is a common way of thinking is law, sporting and otherwise. In this instance, the difference between costing someone a contact lens and costing them their sight in one eye and probably career are tiny. In this instance, he was lucky, but I don't see it as a significant mitigating factor. Similarly, I don't see why a hay maker that connects with someone with Homer Simpson syndrome who laughs it off (aka Norm Hadley) should be treated much differently to one that knocks the recipient out cold.
3) I'm 99% sure that this is immaterial (as I said, I skimmed the document, but don't remember this as mitigation) and agree that it shouldn't be.
4) I don't see the relevance of this either - rules are rules, be it in the lowliest friendly or the World Cup final. Changing the rules dependant on something contextual like this would make all judgements highly subjective and make consistent rulings close to impossible.

A couple of other points that I would make based on the animated GIF posted above to surmise the situation:

5) His head wasn't buried in a maul as claimed.
6) His flailing arm was at or above the level of his own shoulder. What did he expect to make contact with?

I would hate it if in the near future every team starts hiring video reviewers who go through every single possible frame of every camera of every game looking for stuff like this.

Independent citing officers are appointed to avoid this situation (at higher levels at least).

Edit: I clearly type slower that ncurd and Mcfadden!

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Sorry but points 2-3 have no place in eye gouging cases, it's potential life changing, career ending consequences mean it is punished severely to stop any player getting close to doing it. Point 1 is why it was adjudged lower end.

Point 4 isn't even a point.

I thought i made it clear that i understand both the rule and the ruling, and that i accept it (not like i have a choice tbh). But this ain't just about the "case", i was half venting. I understand the rule, i just do not like it (kindly avoid the "find another sport" retort). It afects Argentina so i'm biased, but i'm confident i'd say the same thing if another team was on the receiving end.

Those 4 points are factual and don't necessarily meet the concepts typified by the rules, agreed. They are facts nonetheless. These facts were posted to show why although i (again) understand the rule, i think the punishment is a tad harsh.

Independent citing officers are appointed to avoid this situation (at higher levels at least).

How does that work?

 

[ncurd]

I thought i made it clear that i understand both the rule and the ruling, and that i accept it (not like i have a choice tbh). But this ain't just about the "case", i was half venting. I understand the rule, i just do not like it (kindly avoid the "find another sport" retort). It afects Argentina so i'm biased, but i'm confident i'd say the same thing if another team was on the receiving end.

Those 4 points are factual and don't necessarily meet the concepts typified by the rules, agreed. They are facts nonetheless. These facts were posted to show why although i (again) understand the rule, i think the punishment is a tad harsh.


How does that work?

I didn't say I didn't think you misunderstood the ruling. I'm telling you why what you said should, does & will continue to have no bearing on these cases. Most ex-players who have been eye gouged pretty much consider it the most reprehensible act that can committed on rugby pitch. If you think these should be mitigating factors you are quite simply wrong.

 

[RedruthRFC]

How does that work?

It is the citing officer's prerogative to decide if any incidents need to be referred, so the scenario you describe couldn't lead to a citing.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Well, I knew about schadenfreude, the German word that means to laugh at someone else's misfortune, but I'd never heard of backpfeifengesicht !!

It's a beauty of a word. And describes Quade to a T, would you not agree?

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Most ex-players who have been eye gouged pretty much consider it the most reprehensible act that can committed on rugby pitch.

Accidental eye gouging? If it is kindly provide a source.

- - - Updated - - -

It is the citing officer's prerogative to decide if any incidents need to be referred, so the scenario you describe couldn't lead to a citing.

Thanks. Forgive my ignorance, but i'm not sure i understand, still.
So if the citing officer misses something that later comes to light, nothing happens?

 

[j'nuh]

Something about this really winds me up. To my mind a minimum ban should be exactly that. Rather than reducing ban lengths for contrition and good previous record, why not extend bans for players who have a bad record or fail to show contrition? The number of bans handed out that fall below the lower end makes a mockery of the recommendations.

It does happen: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/12/18/rugby-union-european-armitage-idUKL3N0U20E520141218

Fortunately, most players have a good record, so it's relatively rare that players have an increased sentence because of past behaviour.

I think mitigation is a good thing in general. It allows a degree of flexibility in sentencing. Even 9 weeks feels a bit too much for what Galarza did relative to other offences.

 

[otapouri]

You see a lot of this swinging off heads in mauls and your not allowed near the head at any other time in the game so it amazes me more penalties aren't awarded

 

[The Jones Boy]

I notice that in true All Black fashion Retallick has said nothing.
He was obviously unperturbed by the event/affair.

 

[austingtir]

Sorry but points 2-3 have no place in eye gouging cases, it's potential life changing, career ending consequences mean it is punished severely to stop any player getting close to doing it. Point 1 is why it was adjudged lower end.

Point 4 isn't even a point.

In the history of international rugby can you give me one instance where someones career was ended by an eyegouge?

Im sorry but its utter BS I couldnt care less what the rules are. You politically correct ***** need to get a life.


Utter utter BS!!!

- - - Updated - - -

You see a lot of this swinging off heads in mauls and your not allowed near the head at any other time in the game so it amazes me more penalties aren't awarded

^^THIS Can we expect to see anyone redcarded from now on? Because thats what this is saying any contact whatsoever with the eye area even accidental will be a yellow or red card from now on. 9 Weeks is just ridiculous. Players with any nouce will now be appealing for a video review if a player accidentally contacts their eye and try to get them sent off imo.

- - - Updated - - -

Hate to drag this up. But it has to be said.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10765708

 

[OneBlackEye]

Which part do you think was an accident?

He thought he was wrapping his hand around another head shaped part of Retallicks body?

Or he didnt realise Retallick has eyes on the front of his head?