Attoub Banned for 70 Weeks

Discussion in 'European Champions & Challenge Cup' started by monkeypigeon, Jan 19, 2010.

  1. monkeypigeon

    monkeypigeon Guest

  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. Bluemoon

    Bluemoon Guest

    70 weeks is certainly a statement. Any possibility of that being reduced with the argument that similar incidents have had less time?
  4. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkeypigeon @ Jan 19 2010, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    From french players, definitely.
    Others can rest in peace

  5. monkeypigeon

    monkeypigeon Guest

    Yeah, I doubt they'll stick with 70. But at least Dupey said "yeah my hand was in his face but I wasn't gouging" compared to this guy who seemed to really get on the judge fella's nerves with his attitude of: "Finger? What Finger?? I did not put my finger there!!! The Camera man put my finger there!?! Is that even a finger? It looks more like a toe to me...".

    And i agree with you Elgringo that some of the decisions have not been harsh enough (Burger) but there's been long decisions against non French players too:

    Hartley 24 weeks,
    Best 18 weeks,
    Jennings 12 weeks after Kennedy admitted that Jennings hadn't done anything.
  6. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkeypigeon @ Jan 19 2010, 01:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Yeah I know... What I mean is with Dupuy and Attoub's ban (2 international players), and Tincu's last year, a french player must be deaf if he hasn't realized yet that the ERC will have no mercy against such gestures.
    In other parts of the world though, little kids are training their fingers to become like their favorite player Shalk Burger.

    What annoys me is not the length of the ban _ which I find more or less fair in both cases (Attoub is a thug anyway) _ it is the total absence of consistency between one player and another. And to that extent I have to say Top 14 players have been particularly severely banned lately.

    70 weeks means his carreer is over, I think 30 or 40 would have already been a lot but he would have had the right to play next season.
  7. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

    Wow. A big ban.

    Bet he wouldn't have been given that however if either;
    1. He was a test rugby player.
    2. Ferris wasn't a test rugby player.
  8. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkeypigeon @ Jan 19 2010, 12:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

    I refer you to 2:00 into the video.

    "Yeah my hand was in his face but I wasn't gouging" my arse, sir. He just wanted to rub his hand all over Ferris' face! Of course! It makes so much sense now!
  9. GJ#1

    GJ#1 Guest

    I think the ERC are now taking a strict stance on gouging. Personally the minimum ban should be 70 odd weeks. I don't see how people personally can defend themselves from gouging!
  10. bristol-iain

    bristol-iain Guest

    So why didn't Dupuy get a similar length to Attoub for the same offence, (actually I think Dupuys was worse than Attoubs).
  11. MunsterMan

    MunsterMan Guest

    I expected something like 50 weeks, 70 is a surprise.

    In his evidence, Ferris pretty said Dupuy made contact with his eyes but didn't gouge and didn't cause much pain, where as Attoub had his finger inside Ferris' eye socket for several seconds while Ferris was completely prone, couldn't move and couldn't defend himself. Not surprised at all when you think about it.

    The Burger ban is as much of a disgrace now as it was then, a f***ing shambles to be honest.

    Hope Stade Francais get the pants sued off them by the photographer too, appalling conduct claiming it was a doctored picture.
  12. Bernard

    Bernard Guest

    Hi Everybody

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

    Roastbeef Blackett is not so comprehensive when it is about frenchies it seems , always sufficient evidences..... Dupuy , Attoub , tincu ...same judge , same shame , same unfair way . Compared with dupuy sanction it is so absurd ..and compared to non french sanctions , i had a big laugh .

    I'm not against huge sanctions ( and as elgringo said , Attoub is a thug) but when it is so unfairly given , depending on the mood of somebody and the weather , it is just a shame. consequences risk to be very simple : boycott of the Hcup by french clubs because too much risky for them to loose players on so much length...
  13. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    So what are we saying here? Those who blatantly gouge or rake the eyes should be given a lighter sentence purely because the presiding legal official might have acted leniently against another club for a different offence in the past? I simply cannot agree with that.

    Gouging is completely different to match fixing or corruption. All the parties involved in "Bloodgate" (Harlequins, Mark Evans, etc) have a chance to start over and recover. Someone who has his eyesight irretrievably damaged by a finger cannot start over. His career will have been ended.

    I have absolutely no sympathy for Attoub, Best, Dupuy and Hartley as gouging is incredibly barbaric. In fact, we're the only contact sport in the world that suffers from an epidemic of gouging.

    We need to ask ourselves why Rugby suffers from gouging. Why are we the only sport that is blighted by this evil act and why do our authorities apply the law either ineffectively and without consistency?!
  14. gingergenius

    gingergenius Guest

    That is absolutely ridiculous. The whole disciplinary system in rugby is utterly corrupt and unfair.

    Don't get me wrong, I've got no sympathy with Attoub, nor have I got sympathy with Dupuy or Burger or anyone else. They made the decision to gouge and have to accept the consequences.

    However, the iRB needs to take a serious review of the system.

    There are 2 types of gouging. The rake across the face, and the far nastier sustained poking in the eye. The latter is clearly more uncomfortable for the recipient, and should be punished accordingly.

    Schalk Burger, Attoub, etc. were all guilty of the worst kind of gouging. An isolated incident of this should carry a straight up 26 week (6 month) ban. However, previous misconduct should be taken into account - I would propose that the ban be increased by a further 4 weeks for every previous ban served.

    By this system, Attoub would get the 26 week ban. Schalk Burger has had disciplinary issues before, and would recieve 34 weeks. How is it that Attoub gets 70 and Burger got 8???

    Furthermore, Julien Dupuy committed, in my opinion, a far less serious crime. I'd suggest a 13 week ban for this type of gouging. Alan Quinlan got 12 weeks for this type of offence, which was pretty much fair. Buy why does Dupuy get 23 weeks??? Compared to Quinlan, that is ridiculous. Compared to Burger, that is farcical.

    Let's have a look at a list of recent eye gouge bans who I can find video evidence for:

    Neil Best gets 18 weeks for a rake across Haskell's face. IMO too harsh by 5 weeks, but not bad.
    Alan Quinlan gets 12 weeks for pretty much the same thing.
    Sergio Parisse gets 8 weeks for a blatant 1st degree gouge. Should have got 26.
    Shane Jennings gets 12 for basically nothing.
    Julien Dupuy gets 23 for a rake. Far too harsh.
    David Attoub gets 70 weeks for a bad one. Still too harsh.

    Anything to notice? 1) French players are being made an example of. 2) If you're a world star, your ban is tiny. 3) If you're not needed for internationals, and you're not French, then you'll also recieve a very harsh ban.

    Now let's move on to drug offences. As far as I'm concerned, performance enhancing drugs should be dealt with as they do in athletics. In other words, a 2 year ban. Fortunately, hardly anyone is into this in rugby (that we know of). On the other hand, recreational drugs, as far as I'm concerned, should carry no ban. They don't affect anyone but the user, they don't give him an unfair advantage... However, for the sake of the game/ club's image, fining is a sufficient punishment, since a professional sportsmen should not do anything to jeopardise his health. And those that fail to turn up to tests for whatever reason, should be considered guilty.

    So, Matt Stevens & Wendell Sailor. 2 years for cocaine. 2 years too many in my opinion - a fine would have done just as well.

    But if they got 2 years, how about Justin Harrison? If it were down to me, he too would recieve no more than a fine. As it is, in the interests of fairness, he should have got 2 years. But he gets 8 months. Why is this?

    At least Lipman, Higgins and Crockett recieved the same punishment as each other. However, it was for not turning up to a test. By doing this, you are admitting guilt. And since no one could know what they were guilty of because they obstructed the system, we must assume the worst - performance enhancers. So although in all likelihood they were using cocaine, I would ban them each for 2 years.

    The iRB really needs to fix up. My system sound fair?
  15. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    I think its fair to note that gouging is particularly endemic in France and that many of the cases involve French players or overseas players playing for French clubs.

    My view is that there shouldn't even be a variable punishment for gouging or raking. We're the only sport that seems to have gouging and raking happen on a regular basis so 26 weeks for raking is perfectly fine to me. The idea of banning someone for a month for raking someone's face is absolutely farcical and sends out the wrong signals.

    The maximum or nothing I'm afraid. The Burger fiasco is an example of how stupid the current system is.

    EDIT: Actually sorry I have to say something here:

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
    So you're saying that maliciously raking someone not just once but twice across the eyes with intent to either injure or at the very least intimidate is a "far less serious crime"? Tosh, sir, utter tosh. 26 weeks is perfectly adequate.

    We're here to play rugby and not act like total thugs. If you want to take your anger out on someone then you do it the Josh Lewsey way and legally crunch them in a tackle. He did it on Mat Rogers and guess what? Mat Rogers never wanted to even see Josh Lewsey again. He didn't need to act like a malicious thug and rake eyes or gouge.

    Theres no excuse here. There is no "far less serious crime" because crime (punching) is crime (raking) is crime (gouging) and they all should attract the MAXIMUM sanction.
  16. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Jan 19 2010, 02:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    That's very mature being all sweeping and condemning for everyone, although what actually happened is very different in each instance.

    Especially in the case of Best who was given a 6 month holiday when he was found guilty of "making accidental contact with the eye area". Last time I checked, that isn't anything like gouging.

    Of course though, Haskell was the recipient while he was a Wasp then Probyn & Blackett were the judicial, so naturally he actually (and brutally) raped Haskell.
  17. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    I forgot about Haskell! Him too. Hate him. Kevin Yates also apparently bit someone's ear off so he'd get at least 50 weeks from me.

    I'd make Judge Judy look like Lord Wolf if I were in charge! 2 years for everyone!

  18. monkeypigeon

    monkeypigeon Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Jan 19 2010, 03:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

    Surely by your system Dupuy should actually be getting 26 seeing as he did it twice.

    13 x 2 = 26
  19. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Jan 19 2010, 04:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    18 + 12 + 8 + 12 + 23 = 73 weeks

    So having Attoub's fingers in one's eyes is more or less like having Dupuy's, Best's, Quinlan's, Parisse's and Jenning's in the eyes at the same time. Indisputable logic.

    So that's 5 pairs of fingers at a time.

    So that's a hand in each eye

    A hand has nails so let's take out 3 weeks and go for two elephant cocks (which don't have nails) so we exactly reach 70 weeks.

    Ferris really must have felt that.
  20. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

    It woulfd be so much simpler if we made it a non-contact sport sometimes...
  21. gingergenius

    gingergenius Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Jan 19 2010, 03:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page