Nobodys ended anybodys career when are you going to wake up out of the politically correct fantasy land that your pulling this crap out of???
- - - Updated - - -
No thats what the judiciary might be claiming happened that doesnt make it so. Argentina has a right to appeal.
- - - Updated - - -
"""""They said Retallick, who also attended the hearing, said there was no intention on Galarza's part to hurt him and that New Zealand's team doctor had said an eye injury the citing officer had spotted on the match video was not from Sunday but from a previous training session."""""
"I was involved in a lineout which became a maul. In the maul, I was standing up trying to get through the maul and to the ball. I felt an arm around my head. I then felt a hand go through my left eye which caused my contact lens to come out. I did not require any medical treatment for my left eye other than having a replacement contact lens at halftime."
"Contact was made right across my left eye. Contact was made by just a finger across the eye. The finger dug in on my eye as it went across it for no longer than 2 seconds".
He was questioned by the Player's representatives, by Mr Rutherford and by me. He had not seen the footage of the incident. He said the abrasion below his left eye was caused in training on the Friday before the match. He has had a contact lens dislodged 3 or 4 times before whilst playing. It had always been dislodged through direct contact, namely "something has made contact across the eyeball". He said that such contact need not be "very strong" but there had always been direct contact with the lens to cause it to be dislodged. He could not remember reacting to this incident and he did not make a complaint to the Player at any point because "I had other things to worry about in a game of rugby".
2.16 He was asked to describe the nature of the contact and he said it went "like that across my eye" at which point he demonstrated a sweeping motion across his left eye, from (his) left to right He then said this: "when I said dug in [in my statement] I didn't mean with a finger point it was...the way I recall it, the hand sort of went across my whole face like that" and again demonstrated a sweeping motion across his face, from (his) left to right. He was then shown the footage. He said the contact was made with part of a finger to his eyeball. The finger exerted pressure but that pressure was across his eye. He did not feel any inward pressure onto the eye. Asked if he could remember how he felt when that contact was made, he replied he could not."
These are the statements made by Retallick, both to the citing officer and to the hearing. I'm just curious, but where is inent mentioned? Come to that, what bearing would that have, given that the hearing accepted lack of intent to damge the eye. Is English your first language?
Just to calrify (although I now realise I'm probably ******* in the wind arguing with an idiot who thinks it's Ok to grab another's face during a game on the basis that no professional has yet been blinded that we know of), here's the citing officer's findings:
My finding as to whether that contact constitutes an act of Foul Play:
(a) I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Player targeted the eye and eye area. The contact with the eye and eye area was not intentional or deliberate. He did not look for or seek out the eye deliberately.
(b) However, in my judgement he intentionally reached out for and grabbed the Player's head and face. Further, I am satisfied he knowingly made contact with NZ4's face. With his hand placed on NZ4's face in the way I have described he then deliberately used force to pull his head backwards. In the act of grabbing his face and pulling back his head, he made contact with the Player's eye in the way I have described. I am satisfied that contact was not accidental but was reckless. It was reckless because he knew or ought to have known that in grabbing an opponent's head and face in the way described, there was a risk of committing an act of foul play; there was a risk he would make contact with the opponent's eye or eye area as in fact, he did.
(c) Therefore I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that he committed an act of Foul Play (TDP Clause 10.8.4)
No, knidly furnish me with your eveidence that this player has been pubnished for eye gouging. Or shut up. Some hope.
)
