Attoub Banned for 70 Weeks

[stormer2010]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MunsterMan @ Jan 20 2010, 09:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bullitt @ Jan 19 2010, 04:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It woulfd be so much simpler if we made it a non-contact sport sometimes...[/b]

Peter de Villiers is that you?
[/b][/quote]

LOL Don't think so; no tutu's mentioned for one and the sentence is way too short and too the point.

What's with all the gouging all of a sudden or is it simply that it gets more media attention now? And to think Parisse and Burger started it.. although Burger was technically cleared of gouging as his fingers were flat over the eye area but they should never have been there in the first place. Still ****** at him and hope for players like Juan Smith, Potgieter, Deysel and Frans Viljoen to replace him. Looking forward to the Super14 as I can't think of a single incident of gouging. Lots of high/spear/late tackles, though.

Anyway, I think the sticking point is consistency and I see the French here as ****** about clear double standards as us Saffas were last year. Maybe not as derided as we were but it feels good to know you're not alone. **** the IRB and the ERC. But who has the balls to strike/break away/litigate/kill/kidnap their children etc?

 

[monkeypigeon]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (stormer2010 @ Jan 20 2010, 09:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MunsterMan @ Jan 20 2010, 09:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bullitt @ Jan 19 2010, 04:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It woulfd be so much simpler if we made it a non-contact sport sometimes...[/b]

Peter de Villiers is that you?
[/b][/quote]

LOL Don't think so; no tutu's mentioned for one and the sentence is way too short and too the point.

What's with all the gouging all of a sudden or is it simply that it gets more media attention now? And to think Parisse and Burger started it.. although Burger was technically cleared of gouging as his fingers were flat over the eye area but they should never have been there in the first place. Still ****** at him and hope for players like Juan Smith, Potgieter, Deysel and Frans Viljoen to replace him. Looking forward to the Super14 as I can't think of a single incident of gouging. Lots of high/spear/late tackles, though.

Anyway, I think the sticking point is consistency and I see the French here as ****** about clear double standards as us Saffas were last year. Maybe not as derided as we were but it feels good to know you're not alone. **** the IRB and the ERC. But who has the balls to strike/break away/litigate/kill/kidnap their children etc?
[/b][/quote]

The French will appeal it to their courts and the ban will be overturned within France. It's kinda their thing.

 

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkeypigeon @ Jan 20 2010, 11:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

The French will appeal it to their courts and the ban will be overturned within France. It's kinda their thing.[/b]

Yeah it's our thing when a player is banned without any evidence , case in point Marius Tincu last year. The Ospreys couldn't find ANY evidence of any gouging, picture, video, anything. He still got banned. Now I don't know how justice works in England/ERC but in France as long as you're not proved guilty you're innocent.


What's more, the ERC is a commercial body and has no power whatsoever to prevent a worker doing his job in another country. I'm not even sure the ERC has any real judiciary right...

 

[stormer2010]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkeypigeon @ Jan 20 2010, 11:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

The French will appeal it to their courts and the ban will be overturned within France. It's kinda their thing.[/b]

Better than our let-all-wear-childish-armbands-thing.. oh, well

 

[monkeypigeon]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Jan 20 2010, 09:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkeypigeon @ Jan 20 2010, 11:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The French will appeal it to their courts and the ban will be overturned within France. It's kinda their thing.[/b]

Yeah it's our thing when a player is banned without any evidence , case in point Marius Tincu last year. The Ospreys couldn't find ANY evidence of any gouging, picture, video, anything. He still got banned. Now I don't know how justice works in England/ERC but in France as long as you're not proved guilty you're innocent.


What's more, the ERC is a commercial body and has no power whatsoever to prevent a worker doing his job in another country. I'm not even sure the ERC has any real judiciary right...
[/b][/quote]

I wasn't criticising it, I'm just saying that it's your thing.



I was all for the ban being 70 weeks when I heard it yesterday, but in light of Attoub saying that it happened when he couldn't see and t was an accident that happened for a tenth of a second while he was fighting with Bryan Young, I'd now love to see the video of those few seconds (id there was a camera pointing towards it).

Because it looks bad in the picture but everything looks bad in a still frame. I can't help but think of the Alan Quinlan gouging incident last year when the slow motion sky cameras made it seem like a 5 second incident when really it all happened in half a second.

Now I'm not saying I believe Attoub, as he seems to change his story alot. But more evidence would be nice when handing out a 70 week ban.

And I'm also starting to come around to this arguement of it being the same judge fella that banned Tincu. Can't object to his finding in relation to Dupuy though. 23 weeks is about right.

 

[elgringoborracho]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkeypigeon @ Jan 20 2010, 11:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Jan 20 2010, 09:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkeypigeon @ Jan 20 2010, 11:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The French will appeal it to their courts and the ban will be overturned within France. It's kinda their thing.[/b]

Yeah it's our thing when a player is banned without any evidence , case in point Marius Tincu last year. The Ospreys couldn't find ANY evidence of any gouging, picture, video, anything. He still got banned. Now I don't know how justice works in England/ERC but in France as long as you're not proved guilty you're innocent.


What's more, the ERC is a commercial body and has no power whatsoever to prevent a worker doing his job in another country. I'm not even sure the ERC has any real judiciary right...
[/b][/quote]

I wasn't criticising it, I'm just saying that it's your thing.



I was all for the ban being 70 weeks when I heard it yesterday, but in light of Attoub saying that it happened when he couldn't see and t was an accident that happened for a tenth of a second while he was fighting with Bryan Young, I'd now love to see the video of those few seconds (id there was a camera pointing towards it).

Because it looks bad in the picture but everything looks bad in a still frame. I can't help but think of the Alan Quinlan gouging incident last year when the slow motion sky cameras made it seem like a 5 second incident when really it all happened in half a second.

Now I'm not saying I believe Attoub, as he seems to change his story alot. But more evidence would be nice when handing out a 70 week ban.

And I'm also starting to come around to this arguement of it being the same judge fella that banned Tincu. Can't object to his finding in relation to Dupuy though. 23 weeks is about right.
[/b][/quote]

23 weeks for Dupuy is fair to me too, since there is indisputable video evidence, and that he . It also makes 70 weeks based on one single picture seem even more illogical

 

[Nickdnz]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elgringoborracho @ Jan 20 2010, 08:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nickdnz @ Jan 20 2010, 02:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have this really weird and experimental idea.




You don't want a large ban, don't make contact with the oppositions eyes with a possible intent to harm. Weird I know, but let's just try it out.





And if I hear one more french person say "It's not fair! our players eye gouging should result in a smaller ban!" then I suggest you make your players stop gouging, as anyone who gouges should be penalised, and even if there are some inconsistancies, it's easy to not take the risk.[/b]

Ok for the last time, we are not saying that, we are saying that if our players get 70 weeks for gouging, the only evidence being a photo, why do others get only 8 weeks? The result should then be our players getting a shorter ban or yours having a longer ban.
It's called justice ffs!!!

So sick of this f***ing anglo saxon bossiness from some members.
[/b][/quote]
What do you mean "yours"? New Zealanders don't gouge .

I like consistency, and I agree that that it should exist. However the act of gouging deserves a large ban no matter who does it, and because one person gets 8 weeks and another gets 70 weeks (while I acknowledge it is a bad inconsistency) I still think that it is such an easy thing to avoid, you deserve what ever you get. It's not a nationality thing. If Daniel Carter eye gouged, I would feel disgraced for him. However I have noticed with many French posters that the normal response to a ban in which malicious play (in particular eye gouging) is met with harsh punishment is "this is f*cking bullsh*t you prejudices pigs. He wasn't even gouging, he was simply wiping away the tears. He should receive no punishment and if he does, it is blatantly bias". While this may be an exaggeration, it is simply such a simple issue to avoid. You can't control the way a board is going to vote, however you can control and be held responsible towards your own actions, and if you think harsher punishments are going to be dealt to you, all the more reason to keep from gouging.

 

[Charles]

If the next player caught gouging is banned for 70 weeks you will hear nothing from us Frenchies (except satisfied and mocking laughters :devban: )

 

[Nickdnz]

Unless he's French of course .

 

[Charles]

:%#%#:


:lol:

 

[elgringoborracho]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nickdnz @ Jan 20 2010, 02:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elgringoborracho @ Jan 20 2010, 08:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nickdnz @ Jan 20 2010, 02:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have this really weird and experimental idea.




You don't want a large ban, don't make contact with the oppositions eyes with a possible intent to harm. Weird I know, but let's just try it out.





And if I hear one more french person say "It's not fair! our players eye gouging should result in a smaller ban!" then I suggest you make your players stop gouging, as anyone who gouges should be penalised, and even if there are some inconsistancies, it's easy to not take the risk.[/b]

Ok for the last time, we are not saying that, we are saying that if our players get 70 weeks for gouging, the only evidence being a photo, why do others get only 8 weeks? The result should then be our players getting a shorter ban or yours having a longer ban.
It's called justice ffs!!!

So sick of this f***ing anglo saxon bossiness from some members.
[/b][/quote]
What do you mean "yours"? New Zealanders don't gouge .

I like consistency, and I agree that that it should exist. However the act of gouging deserves a large ban no matter who does it, and because one person gets 8 weeks and another gets 70 weeks (while I acknowledge it is a bad inconsistency) I still think that it is such an easy thing to avoid, you deserve what ever you get. It's not a nationality thing. If Daniel Carter eye gouged, I would feel disgraced for him. However I have noticed with many French posters that the normal response to a ban in which malicious play (in particular eye gouging) is met with harsh punishment is "this is f*cking bullsh*t you prejudices pigs. He wasn't even gouging, he was simply wiping away the tears. He should receive no punishment and if he does, it is blatantly bias". While this may be an exaggeration, it is simply such a simple issue to avoid. You can't control the way a board is going to vote, however you can control and be held responsible towards your own actions, and if you think harsher punishments are going to be dealt to you, all the more reason to keep from gouging.

[/b][/quote]

Fair enough.

Allow me to be fully convinced that if Daniel Carter gouged someone, he would not get 70 weeks.

 

[MunsterMan]

If carter did the exact same thing, would he deny he ever did it? Say the evidence was forged? Etc. Etc.

Attoub and Guazzini got what was coming to them. Ferris said he had Attoubs's finger in his eye socket for several seconds while he was trapped under several bodies and unable to fight back or free himself. A despicable act, Blackett said it was the worst he had come across and I agree tbh.

 

[elgringoborracho]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MunsterMan @ Jan 20 2010, 05:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

If carter did the exact same thing, would he deny he ever did it? Say the evidence was forged? Etc. Etc.

Attoub and Guazzini got what was coming to them. Ferris said he had Attoubs's finger in his eye socket for several seconds while he was trapped under several bodies and unable to fight back or free himself. A despicable act, Blackett said it was the worst he had come across and I agree tbh.[/b]

Yes that's what Ferris said, and Attoub said it only lasted a half second and that it was unintentional. The only proof is a picture so we can't know for sure who's right.

In such cases though, ERC judge seems to think "f*** the french guy, he has to be lying".

Ferris was man of the match one week after. Attoub's career is over.

 

[Mr.cyclopede]

"I wasn't criticising it, I'm just saying that it's your thing."

Don't think playing with the rules is a French speciality, should even oppositely say that we have lessons to learn is that domain, and by extentions is other ones like lobbying, media propaganda, infiltration,...

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elgringoborracho @ Jan 21 2010, 05:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MunsterMan @ Jan 20 2010, 05:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If carter did the exact same thing, would he deny he ever did it? Say the evidence was forged? Etc. Etc.

Attoub and Guazzini got what was coming to them. Ferris said he had Attoubs's finger in his eye socket for several seconds while he was trapped under several bodies and unable to fight back or free himself. A despicable act, Blackett said it was the worst he had come across and I agree tbh.[/b]

Yes that's what Ferris said, and Attoub said it only lasted a half second and that it was unintentional. The only proof is a picture so we can't know for sure who's right.

In such cases though, ERC judge seems to think "f*** the french guy, he has to be lying".

Ferris was man of the match one week after. Attoub's career is over.
[/b][/quote]
No no no. The evidence came from two players + a photo + (I guess) a medical report. One of the players changed his evidence so much that it became clear he was lying.

Nothing to do with nationality, all about honour and being straightforward.

There's so much bullshit in life, so take satisfaction when the bullshitter gets shat upon.

 

[elgringoborracho]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

No no no. The evidence came from two players + a photo + (I guess) a medical report. One of the players changed his evidence so much that it became clear he was lying.[/b]

Yea right two players of the opposite team and something you guess. How could I miss that! With that kind of evidence he should have been sentenced to death!

No video evidence => the judge has to guess what happened.

 

[Thingimubob]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elgringoborracho @ Jan 20 2010, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MunsterMan @ Jan 20 2010, 05:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If carter did the exact same thing, would he deny he ever did it? Say the evidence was forged? Etc. Etc.

Attoub and Guazzini got what was coming to them. Ferris said he had Attoubs's finger in his eye socket for several seconds while he was trapped under several bodies and unable to fight back or free himself. A despicable act, Blackett said it was the worst he had come across and I agree tbh.[/b]

Yes that's what Ferris said, and Attoub said it only lasted a half second and that it was unintentional. The only proof is a picture so we can't know for sure who's right.

In such cases though, ERC judge seems to think "f*** the french guy, he has to be lying".

Ferris was man of the match one week after. Attoub's career is over.
[/b][/quote]

That photo definitly does not make the gouge look 'unintentional', and Attoub got what was coming to him. I think the whole 'photo is fake! FAKE!' thing counted against him too. I agree fully with you that it's ridiculous that other players are getting 8 weeks bans and others 70. They all should be getting 70 imo - if you gouge then you deserve it.

 

[MunsterMan]

If Attoub had said "Yes, I did it, It was in the heat of the moment, I never would intentionally hurt another professional rugby player, etc. etc. he would have been given a much smaller ban.

Instead, attoub and Guazzini spun lies after lie, trying to claim the evidence was fake, etc. and got what was coming to them. No Sympathy.

 

[bristol-iain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elgringoborracho @ Jan 20 2010, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MunsterMan @ Jan 20 2010, 05:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If carter did the exact same thing, would he deny he ever did it? Say the evidence was forged? Etc. Etc.

Attoub and Guazzini got what was coming to them. Ferris said he had Attoubs's finger in his eye socket for several seconds while he was trapped under several bodies and unable to fight back or free himself. A despicable act, Blackett said it was the worst he had come across and I agree tbh.[/b]

Yes that's what Ferris said, and Attoub said it only lasted a half second and that it was unintentional. The only proof is a picture so we can't know for sure who's right.

In such cases though, ERC judge seems to think "f*** the french guy, he has to be lying".

Ferris was man of the match one week after. Attoub's career is over.
[/b][/quote]

I admire your defense of your fellow countryman but c'mon evidence clearly sees Atoub digging out Ferris' eye and somehow thats doctored. Deserved his 70 weeks and it's 70 not because he is French but because of his act of barbarism.

 

[elgringoborracho]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thingimubob @ Jan 20 2010, 09:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elgringoborracho @ Jan 20 2010, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MunsterMan @ Jan 20 2010, 05:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If carter did the exact same thing, would he deny he ever did it? Say the evidence was forged? Etc. Etc.

Attoub and Guazzini got what was coming to them. Ferris said he had Attoubs's finger in his eye socket for several seconds while he was trapped under several bodies and unable to fight back or free himself. A despicable act, Blackett said it was the worst he had come across and I agree tbh.[/b]

Yes that's what Ferris said, and Attoub said it only lasted a half second and that it was unintentional. The only proof is a picture so we can't know for sure who's right.

In such cases though, ERC judge seems to think "f*** the french guy, he has to be lying".

Ferris was man of the match one week after. Attoub's career is over.
[/b][/quote]

That photo definitly does not make the gouge look 'unintentional', and Attoub got what was coming to him. I think the whole 'photo is fake! FAKE!' thing counted against him too. I agree fully with you that it's ridiculous that other players are getting 8 weeks bans and others 70. They all should be getting 70 imo - if you gouge then you deserve it.
[/b][/quote]

1. In the Burger pic the gouging seems even more intertional. He got a 10 times smaller ban

2. I fully agree that they should all get the same amount of weeks. Yet Tincu, Dupuy and Attoub get the biggest bans ever. Maybe my nationality blinds me but I feel like I see a pattern here.

3. In this picture the cat definitely seems to be riding an invisible bike.

4. The fact that they claimed it was a fake picture because some stupid french expert thought he had proved it is a mistake and has to be taken into consideration. In this cas though it multiplied the average ban for gouging by 3. Seems like bullshit to me.