Gouging incident in the T14 this weekend

[Thingimubob]

I'm baffled by how he can deny it, when it looks fairly clear that he has a good grab with the left, then goes in for seconds with the right!

Here's hoping we don't see another Burger incident, and see him serve bugger all

 

[smartcooky]

Hmmmm - they say maximum ban is 208 weeks. Maybe they'l charge him with disrepute or some catch-all (ungentlemanly conduct?) to increase it to life.

Not quite. You should read Regulation 17 yourself and not listen to what "they" (probably being uninformed media jocks) say

[TEXTAREA]WR Regulation 17 Appendix 1:

Notwithstanding the Sanctions in Appendix 1 and/or the provisions of Regulation 17.19 in cases where the player’s actions constitute mid range or top end offending for any type of offence which had the potential to result and, in fact, did result in serious/gross consequences to the health of the victim, the Judicial Officers and/or Disciplinary Committees may impose any period of suspension including a suspension for life.
[/TEXTAREA]

So the only question is, was the victim seriously injured and if so, was it serious enough to impose a life ban, or a ban over 4 years.

 

[ncurd]

"Sadly" the victim was not seriously injured so at most he can have a 4 year ban.

Sod the fact that he had the potential to.

 

[smartcooky]

Well the only thing they could do is also charge him with Misconduct while the ball is out of play - 10.4 (n) in that his actions bring the game into disrepute.

10.4(n) does not have an associated sanction in Appendix 1, so they could then apply Regulation 17.19.12

[TEXTAREA]17.19.12 In respect of offences not referred to in the WR Sanctions in Appendix 1, appropriate sanctions may be imposed at the discretion of the relevant Judicial Officer, Disciplinary Committee, Appeal Officer and/or Appeal Committee[/TEXTAREA]

They could decide that his actions were so egregious, and so public, that it brought serious disrepute to the Game; serious enough for a very length ban. Since the JO also has the power to rule that suspensions must be served consecutively, such a ban could be added on to the 4 years.

 

[Sker]

Players still doing it when they know there are a bajillion cameras pointed at them.

It baffles me, and the "red mist" thing I don't buy much into that. In a total rage you usually want to tear things apart, not go for a sneaky ninja eye gouge

 

[TRF_heineken]

Players still doing it when they know there are a bajillion cameras pointed at them.

It baffles me, and the "red mist" thing I don't buy much into that. In a total rage you usually want to tear things apart, not go for a sneaky ninja eye gouge

Unless he was trained as a ninja, and learned the art of controlling the red mist through inner strength...

 

[ncurd]

Aren't ninjas supposed to be unseen sneaky buggers? Nothing sneaky about this.

 

[FrenchFan]

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.

This is just more slander against our club rugby. Amazing how some can slander and get away with it.

It's not true because one of the biggest ban for gouging concerned a French player called Richard Nones.

For the record, Nones received a 2-year ban for gouging in 1999. This is one of the most severe bans that I know of if not the most severe for gouging.

 

[gaston le gaff]

This is just more slander against our club rugby. Amazing how some can slander and get away with it.

It's not true because one of the biggest ban for gouging concerned a French player called Richard Nones.

For the record, Nones received a 2-year ban for gouging in 1999. This is one of the most severe bans that I know of if not the most severe for gouging.

See PAGE 2 THREAD 36.

 

[dullonien]

After reading this statement by Smartoocky, i did a little research into eye gouging, The list that appears on the subject of promenant players cited does give the French some credit on the subject as the longest bans were given by the French.
Richard Nones 104 weeks
David Attoub 72 weeks
Julien Dupuy 24 weeks, only Dylan Hartley he got 26 weeks came anywhere close.
once again the French are slandered by smartcocky when really they are the at the forefront in this area of disipline no other unions or countries have come anywhere near this sort of punishment in weeks banned.
The Marius incident is completely different after various rulings and inquiries which exist in French law, the IRB agreed with the findings of the Olympics committee (CNOSF) and the ban was all the same 18 weeks, but it applied only to the H Cup, right or wrong he still had a 18 week ban and it was santioned by the IRB now (World Rugby) so these statements of "no balls" etc seem somewhat dumb giving that the above info is correct. The French do take eye gouging seriously even if some people on this furum think differently.

This is just more slander against our club rugby. Amazing how some can slander and get away with it.

It's not true because one of the biggest ban for gouging concerned a French player called Richard Nones.

For the record, Nones received a 2-year ban for gouging in 1999. This is one of the most severe bans that I know of if not the most severe for gouging.

Not saying that Smartcooky was right with his comments regarding France not punishing players severely enough, however using the cases of Nones, Attoub & Dupuy don't provide any real counter to that. Whilst all three players are French, they were all banned by European rugby as they committed their offences during European matches. So the French didn't actually hand out the bans!

 

[TRF_heineken]

Not saying that Smartcooky was right with his comments regarding France not punishing players severely enough, however using the cases of Nones, Attoub & Dupuy don't provide any real counter to that. Whilst all three players are French, they were all banned by European rugby as they committed their offences during European matches. So the French didn't actually hand out the bans!

And herein lies the point that Cooky, and everyone else are trying to make. The counter arguments by Frenchfan and Gaston are void as they haven't proved that FRU did anything whatsoever.

 

[gaston le gaff]

And herein lies the point that Cooky, and everyone else are trying to make. The counter arguments by Frenchfan and Gaston are void as they haven't proved that FRU did anything whatsoever.

As you say they were banned by Euro rugby, but who is to say that they would not have been banned with the same effect by the French IF IT HAPPENED IN A CLUB GAME, this is an augument that is impossible because they were never given the chance as the games were H Cup and not their problem to deal with.
The average ban for a club game is 12/18 weeks, however the French did ban Leguizamon for 12 weeks in a club game Stade v Toulouse so once again the auguments that you say are void is complete bull as the proof that they ban players is written in black and white.

 

[TRF_heineken]

As you say they were banned by Euro rugby, but who is to say that they would not have been banned with the same effect by the French IF IT HAPPENED IN A CLUB GAME, this is an augument that is impossible because they were never given the chance as the games were H Cup and not their problem to deal with.
The average ban for a club game is 12/18 weeks, however the French did ban Leguizamon for 12 weeks in a club game Stade v Toulouse so once again the auguments that you say are void is complete bull as the proof that they ban players is written in black and white.

If the argument is impossible to argue, then why do it in the first place??? It makes you look like a zealot!

 

[gaston le gaff]

nobody is arguging!!!!!! well i'm not, i am stating a fact which proves you are wrong!!! end of, so get of your high horse and read the evidence which prove you are wrong.

 

[gaston le gaff]

nobody is arguging!!!!!! well i'm not, i am stating a fact which proves you are wrong!!! end of, so get of your high horse and read the evidence which proves you are wrong.

[h=2]zealot[/h]<figure class="right"> </figure>

• a person who is zealous, esp. to an extreme degree; fanatic
• among the ancient Jews, a member of a radical political and religious sect that openly resisted Roman rule in Palestine

you may be a wonderful person who knows but lets not go down this road again as you used Zealot with a capital "Z" have a good look at no.2 as definition then you may apologize, i get banned for using uppercase and you go calling people Jewish, radical sectarien etc etc shame on you and as a TRF you of all people should know better, i should report you, but being of a non childish nature i will let you keep your embarrassment purely for yourself while others look on in sympathy..

 

[Sker]

 

[saulan]

So when do you think they will have their wedding? And will they do it in the bush or will they have it in the south of France?

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Bushes are not really in fashion ATM.

 

[saulan]

Bushes are not really in fashion ATM.

You're just worried you won't be able to make it if it's in lion land.

 

[Sker]

Bushes are not really in fashion ATM.

I take offense at this. Bringing the 80s back