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

[RedruthRFC]

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???

In this instance, nobody's career was ended, however it has happened twice in the past (don't forget Gavin Quinnell). On this basis, it's irrefutable that contact with the eye area has the potential to end players' careers. In turn I struggle to see the argument against doing everything possible to eradicate it.

As I said before, reiterated by OneBlackEye, when a six foot eight bloke reaches out at shoulder height or above, what does he expect to make contact with other than another player's head? On this basis he is bang to rights and I hope the appeal is treated as frivolous.

 

[j'nuh]

I see two camps here (disregarding trolling and flaming).

1) The people who see what happened, check the rules, and see that according to both the established procedure has been applied appropriately.
2) The people who see what happened and although understand and agree with 1)'s procedure, think/feel the punishment the rules dictate doesn't fit the crime in this instance. Not because the rules do/don't say so, but because they can think of quite a few instances where in their eyes more heinous crimes have received more lenient punishments.

We'll never find a middle ground because we are talking about different things. j'nuh's post has a good balance between 1) and 2).

Kudos, well said.

The report clearly dictates that this is about as low a punishment you can get for contact with the eye area. There is no leeway left for actually reducing the sentence:

Contact with an opponent's eye or eye area is a serious offence because
of the vulnerability of an eye and the risk of permanent injury. It is often
the result of an insidious act and is one of the offences most abhorred by
rugby players. Serious offences of this sort – and particularly those
known colloquially as "eye gouging" must be dealt with severely to protect
players, to deter others from such activity and to remove offenders from
the game to ensure that they learn the appropriate lesson. Clearly
"contact" encompasses a wide range of activity from applying pressure
with an open hand to a finger intentionally inserted into the eye socket
intending to cause injury. Offences which would properly be classified as
at the Lower End of the scale of seriousness would include, but not be
limited to, wiping with an open palm or fist without any real force or intent
and causing no injury. In certain circumstances it might also include
reckless contact with a finger into the eye area. Offences which would
properly be classified as at the Top End of the scale of seriousness would
include, but not be limited to, an intentional act designed to cause serious
discomfort or injury to the eye or area around the eye of an opponent.
The most serious offences in this category would be where permanent
damage is caused
....

Accordingly I conclude that the act of Foul Play merited a low-end entry point, namely
12 weeks on the World Rugby Sanction Table,

The question is whether the low-end for contact with the eye area should be as high as 12 weeks to begin with. Seeing players being banned for 5 weeks for stamping on faces makes me think that either it is too high, or other offences are treated too leniently.

I guess that there is also the question of whether he actually made contact with the eyes/eye area. The report says a contact lens was dislodged, so I'd guess so.

 

[Horacito]

Brodie Retallick said he almost didn't felt it and is probably as dazed as us to hear from the sanction.

The sad part is Galarza has to leave this way: I wanted him to leave because he's not good enough.

 

[Mcfadden]

The minimum is 12 weeks. He got 9 weeks because of mitigating factors. I'm not sure what the talk of "doesn't fit the crime" is all about. It has been shown that the punishment is on the lighter side as it is.

Austin, I love the passion that comes out in your posts but c'mon man. You've been like this all season. You hated any kind of penalty or citing in Super, and now now you're carrying it on. Nobodies being politically correct, man. It's not about that at all. Rugby isn't some wild, wild west show where if someone roughens you up you sort them out and get on with it. People's vision can be seriously impaired, and just because we don't know of any famous examples doesn't mean there are literally none in the world. Rugby is also something we're trying to sell. Especially to parents to get their kids playing it instead of football. Not a good look.

Part of why the penalty of doing it is so high isn't just because of health and safety (although imo, that's a big one). There's got to be some commercial reasons involved too. As a sports fan, there are a lot of sports I don't watch because of negative things which are prevalent in it. Lost viewership because of our reputation, image and how we're perceived could translate into lost playing numbers and money, in the long term. Rugby isn't just some thing that happens. We constantly must grow it and take it to market.

 

[ncurd]

The question is whether the low-end for contact with the eye area should be as high as 12 weeks to begin with. Seeing players being banned for 5 weeks for stamping on faces makes me think that either it is too high, or other offences are treated too leniently.

Fair question I'd fall on the side of stamping of the head being adjudged at 5 weeks as too low.

Head injuries in general are incredibly serious part of the reason why WR are getting funny with concussion. Injury to these areas can change lives far beyond their rugby careers. We need to mitigate the potential for that as much as possible while keeping it a physical game. A no go area being the head in terms of bans helps stop players from doing that.

McFadden is right we're trying to get kids to play I know my wife would say to the suggestion of boxing for our kids when we have them. I imagine a lot of parents would have similar worries if blows to the head were allowed in rugby.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

20 years later and some people still bring up the food poisoning issue... Unbelievable.

 

[RedruthRFC]

People's vision can be seriously impaired, and just because we don't know of any famous examples doesn't mean there are literally none in the world. Rugby is also something we're trying to sell. Especially to parents to get their kids playing it instead of football. Not a good look.

Exactly. As far as I'm aware, professional or international players' eyeballs are no more resilient than the semi pro or amateur players who have been blinded.

Part of why the penalty of doing it is so high isn't just because of health and safety (although imo, that's a big one). There's got to be some commercial reasons involved too. As a sports fan, there are a lot of sports I don't watch because of negative things which are prevalent in it. Lost viewership because of our reputation, image and how we're perceived could translate into lost playing numbers and money, in the long term. Rugby isn't just some thing that happens. We constantly must grow it and take it to market.

Very good point. There are areas of the game I would like to see changed, not least a relaxation in the attitude taken to use of the boot in rucks, but I've long since made peace with the fact that this is never going to happen because of the impact it would have on the image and marketability of the game.

 

[austingtir]

The minimum is 12 weeks. He got 9 weeks because of mitigating factors. I'm not sure what the talk of "doesn't fit the crime" is all about. It has been shown that the punishment is on the lighter side as it is.

Austin, I love the passion that comes out in your posts but c'mon man. You've been like this all season. You hated any kind of penalty or citing in Super, and now now you're carrying it on. Nobodies being politically correct, man. It's not about that at all. Rugby isn't some wild, wild west show where if someone roughens you up you sort them out and get on with it. People's vision can be seriously impaired, and just because we don't know of any famous examples doesn't mean there are literally none in the world. Rugby is also something we're trying to sell. Especially to parents to get their kids playing it instead of football. Not a good look.

Part of why the penalty of doing it is so high isn't just because of health and safety (although imo, that's a big one). There's got to be some commercial reasons involved too. As a sports fan, there are a lot of sports I don't watch because of negative things which are prevalent in it. Lost viewership because of our reputation, image and how we're perceived could translate into lost playing numbers and money, in the long term. Rugby isn't just some thing that happens. We constantly must grow it and take it to market.

Your looking at it from a position that you agree with the judiciary and how they go about dishing this crap out.

Fact is I dont and you lot are never going to convince me otherwise.

 

[Sker]

Woah woah waoh someone told me there was an opportunity to troll here, did I miss it? Did I?

Richie McCaw what a dirty cheat, amirite? Guys?

...guys?

Anyone?

 

[austingtir]

In this instance, nobody's career was ended, however it has happened twice in the past (don't forget Gavin Quinnell). On this basis, it's irrefutable that contact with the eye area has the potential to end players' careers. In turn I struggle to see the argument against doing everything possible to eradicate it.

As I said before, reiterated by OneBlackEye, when a six foot eight bloke reaches out at shoulder height or above, what does he expect to make contact with other than another player's head? On this basis he is bang to rights and I hope the appeal is treated as frivolous.

I look forward to seeing an England player red carded during a big match for daring to put his hand near anybodys head then. I still say the punishment is far to excessive in this case.

Nobodys been seriously hurt in any game I can remember by an eyegouge. If any player really wanted to rip someones eyeballs out they could do it. The fact is they dont and never have in big matches because they in most cases arent complete retards and know the consequences of what will happen to them if they do. Most eyegouges I have ever seen and this is going back a long way were purely dirty sportsmanship and trying to get one up on the other player because in every instance they could of cause major damage but never did.

Im not going to sit here and let people on here muddy the waters with all this mellycoddling rubbish.

I for one believe the Argentine player is innocent and it doesnt mean a thing to me that his hand happened to make contact with the eye area of Retallick. I dont expect the judiciary to reverse their decision but I do believe Argentina should refute the charge all the way.

 

[otapouri]

Is the last poster missing something , LEAVE the head alone and nine weeks suspension never happens period.

 

[austingtir]

Brodie Retallick said he almost didn't felt it and is probably as dazed as us to hear from the sanction.

The sad part is Galarza has to leave this way: I wanted him to leave because he's not good enough.

Exactly Brodie was pretty upfront in what he's said and I believe the Argentine player was the same. This was an accident pure and simple and shoud of been treated as such. To dish out this kind of sanction for this action is ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

Is the last poster missing something , LEAVE the head alone and nine weeks suspension never happens period.

Nope I didnt miss anything but you obviously agree with the judicial process. I dont and never have.

 

[otapouri]

Richard Loe would probably have had a couple of life bans in today's hearings with the elbow on Paul Coraza and eye gauging Greg Cooper, not a bad bloke **** of a temper

 

[smartcooky]

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

Yes!

 

[austingtir]

Richard Loe would probably have had a couple of life bans in today's hearings with the elbow on Paul Coraza and eye gauging Greg Cooper, not a bad bloke **** of a temper

Richard was good value imo. The sport needs guys like him. But yeah he wouldnt of lasted long with the current batch of fairys running the game.

This one by Sean is classic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyE_jaMwANY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VArI9ikbFIY

 

[Cookies]

If eye gouging was illegal enough to end one's career, none of the South Africans would be playing (and food poisoning. Yes, we remember).

^^^ RSA were booted out of international competition for twenty years for a reason TRF_stormer. Do some research.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

These are entry points. LE means Low End", MR means "Mid Range" and TE means "Top End"

All things being equal, an eye gouge should get you 12 weeks, but the trouble is that things are not equal. If you were to make it a true minimum then that would be unfair to a player who showed remorse, made an early guilty plea and had a clean record as they would be treated the same as a player who defended the charge.

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.

The transcripts of all SANZAR judicial hearings (including for the Rugby Championship) are published on their website

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/?categoryID=846452DC-98FB-D0A7-0A3DBBCEFD2C9E9C

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/therugbychampionship/news/?categoryID=846452DC-98FB-D0A7-0A3DBBCEFD2C9E9C

WR make theirs available to the media through the media access part of their website (available only to those with media accreditation)

As you point out, RFU transcripts are available from the "Judgement Documents Search" link on this page http://www.englandrugby.com/governance/discipline/

- - - Updated - - -

Is the last poster missing something , LEAVE the head alone and nine weeks suspension never happens period.

100% this.

The head and eyes are sacrosanct. If you mess around getting your hands near opponents eyes, you only have yourself to blame if you make contact with them and end up banned. There is no good reason to put your hands anywhere near an opponent's face, and nobody makes you do so; that is down to you and you alone.

Keep your hands away from opponents faces and you wont get into that particular bit of trouble.

 

[Horacito]

The problem here is the standard it sets: we'll see what happens when this judgment falls upon a more important team in the anglosaxon community (SA, ENG, AB, etc). I see pages and pages of you did this in 1934 and I still remember that time in 2007 with interpretations of rules and expert analisis.

The point is that we are all the same to the judges and if this is the standard, we are going to have more than one upset.

 

[austingtir]

The problem here is the standard it sets: we'll see what happens when this judgment falls upon a more important team in the anglosaxon community (SA, ENG, AB, etc). I see pages and pages of you did this in 1934 and I still remember that time in 2007 with interpretations of rules and expert analisis.

The point is that we are all the same to the judges and if this is the standard, we are going to have more than one upset.

This is a point im trying to make aswell but it just goes clean over the head of the professional hand wringers on here.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

What's the craic with a player getting banned for the rest of the tournament? Do they have to continue with a 30 man squad or are they allowed a replacement?