Well that was the question I answered. The appropriate punishment is the consistent punishment.
So same answer.
Edit: This assumes we are talking about the one individual incident.
Last edited:
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Gouging incident in the T14 this weekend
- Thread starter ratsapprentice
- Start date
Well that was the question I answered. The appropriate punishment is the consistent punishment.
So same answer.
Edit: This assumes we are talking about the one individual incident.
I don't even think there's a decent precedent to set a consistent punishment from. It's a frikkin' rabid, deliberate and repeated attack. Will be interested to see how this plays out. Personally I'd have called the police.
Attoub (70) is probably the closest, or McRae (7) for the rabid assault part
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,708
- Reaction score
- 772
I know you're just kidding, but ANY comparison with the Franks incident is just laughable. This eye-gouge was the type of action that citing was intended for, not "so that someone can have another look", and not "to refer the action to a higher authority". It was a deliberate, persistent and repeated attempt to seriously injure, perhaps even permanently maim his opponent, by inserting his fingers into the opponent's eye sockets, and as such, meets the red card threshold for citing. It was disgusting, and disturbing to watch
I voted "life" because that is what it deserves, although in reality, I doubt that he will get more than a few months because I don't believe the French have the balls to ban him for any longer, and I don't think they treat eye-gouging as seriously other countries do. If you don't understand where I am coming from with that comment, you should Google "Marius Tincu eye-gouge", and see how a Top 14 club (mis)used the courts to overturn a judiciary ruling to allow a player to continue playing Top 14 while he served an 18 week ban from the Heineken Cup. No clubs in other countries would dare attempt that, because their National Unions have the balls to stop them.
I also hope that some of the usual suspects in the British Media and former rugby players like Brian O'Driscoll have plenty to say about this, and to go on and on about it for at least a week, although all I really expect is a devastating silence.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,094
- Reaction score
- 796
So if, for example, there had been incidents in the past of equal severity to this one that had been punished with a 1 week ban, then you would say a 1 week ban was the appropriate punishment?
Last edited:
Yoshimitsu
Academy Player
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
- Messages
- 394
- Reaction score
- 276
Life Ban - Too dangerous to allow anything else.
This isn't a case of accidentally taking a player out in the air. This isn't a forearm charge gone wrong, this isn't a petulant trip as a player passes. This is a full on assault on the sight of a player by another who has clearly lost the ability to reason. Such men should not be on a rugby pitch as there's nothing to say they won't lose it in a similar way in the future. I'd say this actually is in Calum Clark territory (I'd have banned him forever too). I don't care what expressions of remorse are made, the simple fact is that in a game where you entrust your safety to the fairness (if not sanity) of the opposition this action is a base betrayal of all the values the game holds dear. There's no accident here, he's gone to seriously damage someone.
Outside that I'd go for something similar to Alpha Bro suggests 24 months but I'd add in compulsory psychiatric component and community remediation. If he doesn't sign up, life ban.
As for the consistency point I'm afraid that argument is pretty hard to apply. When Schalk Burger gouged Luke Fitzgerald and Peter De Villiers made some nonsense comment about tutus, Burger got 8 weeks. Clearly not proportionate and barely a deterrent. I'm happy to see the harshest of sanctions applied for deliberately targeting the eyes. If people get umpy about inconsistency with the best will in the world, **** em.
This isn't a case of accidentally taking a player out in the air. This isn't a forearm charge gone wrong, this isn't a petulant trip as a player passes. This is a full on assault on the sight of a player by another who has clearly lost the ability to reason. Such men should not be on a rugby pitch as there's nothing to say they won't lose it in a similar way in the future. I'd say this actually is in Calum Clark territory (I'd have banned him forever too). I don't care what expressions of remorse are made, the simple fact is that in a game where you entrust your safety to the fairness (if not sanity) of the opposition this action is a base betrayal of all the values the game holds dear. There's no accident here, he's gone to seriously damage someone.
Outside that I'd go for something similar to Alpha Bro suggests 24 months but I'd add in compulsory psychiatric component and community remediation. If he doesn't sign up, life ban.
As for the consistency point I'm afraid that argument is pretty hard to apply. When Schalk Burger gouged Luke Fitzgerald and Peter De Villiers made some nonsense comment about tutus, Burger got 8 weeks. Clearly not proportionate and barely a deterrent. I'm happy to see the harshest of sanctions applied for deliberately targeting the eyes. If people get umpy about inconsistency with the best will in the world, **** em.
Voted life.
I just want this stamped out of the game. Intentionally and persistently goes for the eyes, and then claims afterwards that his first was closed!
I just want this stamped out of the game. Intentionally and persistently goes for the eyes, and then claims afterwards that his first was closed!
The Jones Boy
First XV
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,708
- Reaction score
- 772
One of the thing that gets me about this thread and this forum - is we have some English posters here that wonder why smartcookie is argumentative, that wonder why so many kiwis posters are trolls while the best ones don't continue to post, and wonder why I make an effort not to be super confrontational. And they do so with no introspection. What a f*cking unenjoyable thread. Even among poster I make an effort to follow for their insight.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 13,583
- Reaction score
- 10,439
Well as one of those who quite adamantly argued against smartcooky about the Franks incident, I think bringing in the AB comparison for this is ridiculous. I think the Franks thing should have been punished but this is a completely different league and saying an AB would have got away with it is kinda stupid.
Maybe. But I mainly wanted to point out the hipocrisy in punishment by official Rugby bodies.
Have to point I for one was 100% joking not actually being serious at all, Franks at most should of ended up with a couple of weeks ban (although the citing commision dont actually allow for that short in their guidelines if he was cited).
But yeah totally different incidents I was more annoyed with Franks due to massive inconsistency with similar incidents. This isn't similar and I want to see the book chucked at him I voted years but I'm verging on life.
gaston le gaff
First XV
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2012
- Messages
- 3,451
- Reaction score
- 1
I can't speak for others - but mine was very much tongue in cheek (though I did forget to add a smilie - always a crime given that there's no non-verbal communication on forums).
I voted for life on this one; and citing, and shortest possible ban for Franks (4 weeks IIRC; 8 then 50% off for good behaviour). IMO contact with the eyes - deliberate or otherwise needs to be stamped out of the game, and you don't get that by letting things go.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,857
- Reaction score
- 6,888
Yeah, the English SoH doesn't always translate, but I hadn't picked up anyone treating this less than seriously.
One of the arguments is always the balance between action, intent and outcome. I'm not aware that Batlle was seriously hurt, but if he had lost an eye or both eyes then presumably a life ban and criminal prosecution could be taken as read. In many walks of life an attempt can be sanctioned as heavily as an actual offence and here the intent seems to be clear, the fact that it wasn't a "successful" gouge isn't mitigation. I think I'm arguing against my earlier view and leaning towards the life ban.
I agree. And some posts are intended to rile up certain posters, and then when those posters do make a remark, they either go in like a swarm of bees and attack with stingy remarks or revert back to "It was just tongue in cheek" or "I meant it sarcastically" etc.
This is yet again an unenjoyable thread and the same remarks that we now had over 6 different threads are becoming tedious. I get why so many of our quality posters are not as active as they once were, or that they now just lurk in the shadows.
So first off this a completely seperate and vile incident I do think this warrants its own thread and should be discussed.
As to the joking over the NZ incident. Smartcooky said he knew I was joking but still had to go on a diatribe about it anyway.
I do find it sad that you can't joke about two very seperate and different gouging incidents one of which led to extremely lengthy and foul-tempered debate (why was the second thread allowed to go on after it descended into the same nonsense as the first thread?).
You have to realise who I'm making fun of here, I'm not trying to goad certain people, I'm actually making fun of a) those who can't see the difference between these incidents. b) those who think NZ get preferential treatment. The entire point is that's its absurd that anyone think those two things are true. I do this by making a stupid comment and then say what I seriously think afterwards.
It is rather sad we can't talk about a serious topic withou injecting some levity into proceedings.
As to the joking over the NZ incident. Smartcooky said he knew I was joking but still had to go on a diatribe about it anyway.
I do find it sad that you can't joke about two very seperate and different gouging incidents one of which led to extremely lengthy and foul-tempered debate (why was the second thread allowed to go on after it descended into the same nonsense as the first thread?).
You have to realise who I'm making fun of here, I'm not trying to goad certain people, I'm actually making fun of a) those who can't see the difference between these incidents. b) those who think NZ get preferential treatment. The entire point is that's its absurd that anyone think those two things are true. I do this by making a stupid comment and then say what I seriously think afterwards.
It is rather sad we can't talk about a serious topic withou injecting some levity into proceedings.
Similar threads
