Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
SuperRugby: Bulls v Crusaders
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="smartcooky" data-source="post: 494655" data-attributes="member: 20605"><p>Heineken, keep in mind that video evidence is not necessary to reach a finding of guilty for eye gouging.</p><p></p><p> The Perpignan/Romania prop Marius Tincu was cited and charged with gouging the eyes of Ospreys prop Paul James in a Heineken Cup game in 2008. All of this happened with no video evidence, the citing, charging and verdit were reached purely on the say-so of the victim and one other Wales player, as well as that of a the doctor who treated Paul James.</p><p></p><p>All I am saying is that there is NO evidence, despite the fact that there were 10 camera angles to choose from, and an all South African technical crew who would have been well motivated to find anything if it was there. There also does not appear to be any physical or medical evidence that an eye-gouge took place, otherwise the Bull coaching staff would be all over it like a rash, showing photos of injuries and making formal complaints. </p><p></p><p>This then leads me to believe that no eye-gouging took place and that someone is telling porkies, and it ain't the Crusaders.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I see Carter holding his arms out as he runs, ready to receive a return pass if the ball carrier is tackled</p><p></p><p>I can make an equally valid case for penalising Basson for trying to take out a support player.</p><p></p><p>BTW, just to quote the <u>CORRECT</u> law that applies to this situation..</p><p></p><p>[TEXTAREA]10.1 OBSTRUCTION</p><p>(b)<strong> Running in front of a ball carrier.</strong> A player must not intentionally move or stand<strong> in front of a team-mate carrying the ball</strong> thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball carriers when they gain possession.</p><p>Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]</p><p></p><p>Carter wasn't in front of the ball carrier, he was behind!!!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="smartcooky, post: 494655, member: 20605"] Heineken, keep in mind that video evidence is not necessary to reach a finding of guilty for eye gouging. The Perpignan/Romania prop Marius Tincu was cited and charged with gouging the eyes of Ospreys prop Paul James in a Heineken Cup game in 2008. All of this happened with no video evidence, the citing, charging and verdit were reached purely on the say-so of the victim and one other Wales player, as well as that of a the doctor who treated Paul James. All I am saying is that there is NO evidence, despite the fact that there were 10 camera angles to choose from, and an all South African technical crew who would have been well motivated to find anything if it was there. There also does not appear to be any physical or medical evidence that an eye-gouge took place, otherwise the Bull coaching staff would be all over it like a rash, showing photos of injuries and making formal complaints. This then leads me to believe that no eye-gouging took place and that someone is telling porkies, and it ain't the Crusaders. I see Carter holding his arms out as he runs, ready to receive a return pass if the ball carrier is tackled I can make an equally valid case for penalising Basson for trying to take out a support player. BTW, just to quote the [U]CORRECT[/U] law that applies to this situation.. [TEXTAREA]10.1 OBSTRUCTION (b)[B] Running in front of a ball carrier.[/B] A player must not intentionally move or stand[B] in front of a team-mate carrying the ball[/B] thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball carriers when they gain possession. Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA] Carter wasn't in front of the ball carrier, he was behind!!! [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
SuperRugby: Bulls v Crusaders
Top