IRB acts to eradicate eye gouging

yimrsg

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2032608.html#irb+acts+eradicate+gouging

Glad to see a response from the IRB regarding this issue and hopefully only good can come from this review.

Now if all us boardies can get along!

Profiler

Much a do about nothing.

THE IRB are making all the right sounds but be 100% sure - nothing will come of this.

The IRB will do what they are told do like by the likes of the South African/New Zealand/Australian rugby boards, or they will lose the money.

Sangre

Surely the money is firmly in the hands of NH teams who do seem intent on stamping it out.

d'Oracle

:pac:

They aren't acting.

They are talking about acting.
Hold that thread.

Profiler

Sangre wrote: »

Surely the money is firmly in the hands of NH teams who do seem intent on stamping it out.

In the NH the clubs have the money in the SH the national boards have the money. The next world cup in is NZ and the IRB wont rock the money train over this.

Amabokke

It's like anything else the IRB won't make rush decisions. I believe eye gouging should have a mandatory ban of 2 years just like biting. 1-2 Bans and players will quickly learn.

d'Oracle

Amabokke wrote: »

It's like anything else the IRB won't make rush decisions. I believe eye gouging should have a mandatory ban of 2 years just like biting. 1-2 Bans and players will quickly learn.

Will they try to lengthen Schalkes ban though?

If the do, how far will they go?

This is a big opportunity to sort this out.

themont85

Maybe the IRB should just enforce their own rules. Look at the bans for gouging, they have been going down progressively as of late, 12 or 8 isn't enough. And the number of cases have been going up.

Its like the way they told referees to rule the breakdown differently when it was already in their laws.

Chucky the tree

Profiler wrote: »

The IRB will do what they are told do like by the likes of the South African/New Zealand/Australian rugby boards, or they will lose the money.

So the SH teams want to be able to eye gouge? I don't really understand you're point here. I'm sure all SH teams would be more then happy to see review of the eye gouging law. The fact the IRB want to put in a rule that they themselves can appeal decision makes it fairly obvious they weren't at all happy with the length of time given to burger.

Profiler

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So the SH teams want to be able to eye gouge? I don't really understand you're point here. I'm sure all SH teams would be more then happy to see review of the eye gouging law. The fact the IRB want to put in a rule that they themselves can appeal decision makes it fairly obvious they weren't at all happy with the length of time given to burger.

No the IRB will talk up all the action they are going to take over this scourge on the game, nip in the bud, stop it happening... we the IRB are the somebody thinking of the children...

In reality they will do nothing.

Nothing will change.

A NH player will get a 12 week ban for the same offense that a SH player will only get an 8 week ban.

SH ref's will interprate the rules differently to NH ref's and the inconsistancy will contine.

The IRB's priority is the next world cup, this storm will blow over and soon very few people will talk about this unless it happens again.

Chucky the tree

Profiler wrote: »

No the IRB will talk up all the action they are going to take over this scourge on the game, nip in the bud, stop it happening... we the IRB are the somebody thinking of the children...

In reality they will do nothing.

Nothing will change.

A NH player will get a 12 week ban for the same offense that a SH player will only get an 8 week ban.

SH ref's will interprate the rules differently to NH ref's and the inconsistancy will contine.

The IRB's priority is the next world cup, this storm will blow over and soon very few people will talk about this unless it happens again.

Unless you're talking about purely from a birthplace point of view I don't see how you can say any of that considering Parisse got 8 weeks as well as burger. While you're right about ref's interpreting everything differently it was NH ref who didn't send off Burger and it was a NH person who gave Burger the 8 week ban. You're tinfoil hat like theory is pretty poor.

Profiler

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Unless you're talking about purely from a birthplace point of view I don't see how you can say any of that considering Parisse got 8 weeks as well as burger. While you're right about ref's interpreting everything differently it was NH ref who didn't send off Burger and it was a NH person who gave Burger the 8 week ban. You're tinfoil hat like theory is pretty poor.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say birthplace issue, What I am saying is there is a clear gulf between the NH and the SH in terms of what is deemed acceptable.

Back in the 90’s when I played, raking or giving a player a good shoeing was seen in two distinct ways. In the NH you got a few “brushes” of the scum halfs studs for being in his way at a ruck In the SH it was open season on you, every opposition player saw it as their right to use your back/face as a door mat, you got yourself there tough luck and your fault if you lost an eye or needed a few stitches.

The ARU turned a blind eye to players recovering from serious injuries taking steroids as part of their recovery, in the NH that would have been taboo.

What I am saying is the IRB are not going to try and close that NH/SH gap when a world cup is on the horizon.

There is quite a lot of hype about the Burger incident, what caused most of that hype was what PDV said.

If he had condemned Burger that would have been the end of it, the IRB would have done nothing, there would have been no statement.

As a consequence of PDV's stupid reaction to this the IRB have to be seen to be doing something.

The reality is they will do nothing, that's all I am saying.

If they were really serious about tacking gouging then after the Dylan Hartley affair they would have brought in a mandatory 12 to 24 month ban.

The Burger incident in my view will change nothing.

Nelson Muntz

Profiler wrote: »

The ARU turned a blind eye to players recovering from serious injuries taking steroids as part of their recovery, in the NH that would have been taboo.

Any chance you have any proof of this or are you just talking ****e?

Amabokke

Profiler wrote: »

A NH player will get a 12 week ban for the same offense that a SH player will only get an 8 week ban.

SH ref's will interprate the rules differently to NH ref's and the inconsistancy will contine.

very few people will talk about this unless it happens again.

I think if you search the forum you will find very good answers to why a NH player received 12 weeks as supposed to a SH 18 weeks. IT had nothing to do with hemisphere but with the history of those players.

There is no inconsistency in referring, the game is simply player differently between the two hemisphere. Again, if you search you'll find a post from me explaning this properly.

People are going to talk about this for a long time and it happened 4 times in the last 6 months, which is way too many times.

Its like the way they told referees to rule the breakdown differently when it was already in their laws.

Nobody told the refs to rule the breakdown differently, it's because how the game is played in that country. Search the forum for posts on the different referring.

Stealdo

Under existing IRB Disciplinary Regulations only the player may appeal independent judicial decisions. In light of recent cases, the IRB will review whether the scope of the appeal should in the future extend to other appropriate parties, including the IRB itself.

I think that is the most significant part of the article. The IRB is saying here that it wants to have the right to appeal against suspensions that it sees as being too lenient, with a big hint towards the SB ban.

What can you expect though when officials lie (and I do mean lie) to the inquiry.

Bryce Lawrence to Christophe Berdos during the game...
"I could see it clearly, it was clearly fingers in the eye area"
(These are the exact words he used)

Report on the incident
3.4 Mr Bryce Lawrence gave evidence at the Hearing that he was within 2
metres of the location of the incident. He said that he “caught a glimpse”
from the corner of his eye of the event which he said was sufficient for a
report of foul play to be made to the referee. He said he saw Burger’s
hand move from one side of Lions No 11 ’s face to the other side at the
eye region. He emphasized at the hearing that he advised the referee
that this was at a minimum a yellow card offence. Mr Swart introduced
into evidence a copy of the DVD of the game and played the portion
involving the incident at the hearing. He asked that the match officials’
voices be audible at the hearing. It is clear from the recording that the
words noted above were indeed used by Mr Lawrence in his report to the
referee, that is that the offence was at a minimum a yellow card offence.
3.5 Mr Lawrence stated that if he had seen finger- poking or gouging or
ripping at the eyes he would have advised the referee to issue a red
card. But, he said he could not say one way or the other if such did occur
from his viewpoint. His view of the incident was incomplete and only “a
glimpse”.

(Can't find an official link to the above but it's being fairly widely reported)

Decided to cover his own first.

Amabokke

Stealdo wrote: »

Report on the incident
3.4 Mr Bryce Lawrence gave evidence at the Hearing that he was within 2
metres of the location of the incident. He said that he “caught a glimpse”
from the corner of his eye of the event which he said was sufficient for a
report of foul play to be made to the referee. He said he saw Burger’s
hand move from one side of Lions No 11 ’s face to the other side at the
eye region. He emphasized at the hearing that he advised the referee
that this was at a minimum a yellow card offence. Mr Swart introduced
into evidence a copy of the DVD of the game and played the portion
involving the incident at the hearing. He asked that the match officials’
voices be audible at the hearing. It is clear from the recording that the
words noted above were indeed used by Mr Lawrence in his report to the
referee, that is that the offence was at a minimum a yellow card offence.
3.5 Mr Lawrence stated that if he had seen finger- poking or gouging or
ripping at the eyes he would have advised the referee to issue a red
card. But, he said he could not say one way or the other if such did occur
from his viewpoint. His view of the incident was incomplete and only “a
glimpse”.

If that is the exact report then Lawrence is actually very clever. When you look the gouging you can see him standing right next to the incident and saw what happened so the glimps part is a lie. He obivously know he was caught on camera looking at the incident so wanted to make sure he says at least a yellow and leave it up to the ref.

Stealdo

Amabokke wrote: »

If that is the exact report then Lawrence is actually very clever. When you look the gouging you can see him standing right next to the incident and saw what happened so the glimps part is a lie. He obivously know he was caught on camera looking at the incident so wanted to make sure he says at least a yellow and leave it up to the ref.

Agree with you on that alright - and in fairness you can't really expect him to do anything different for the sake of truth, justice and the american way. It just irritates me that people talk about this using words like disgusting and heinous and it seems that it is until it's a player from their own team or affects them personally.

Profiler

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

Any chance you have any proof of this or are you just talking ****e?

source

"ARU managing director John O`Neill and Wallaby coach Eddie Jones said Ben Tune had been an innocent victim, admitting officials should have come clean about his use of the banned drug to treat a serious knee infection 18 months ago".

Eoin

themont85 wrote:

Its like the way they told referees to rule the breakdown differently when it was already in their laws.

Except that gouging and/or contact with the eyes isn't mentioned in the laws. Maybe it would help if it was actually in the law book, rather than being a guideline (which I'm presuming is all it is). If that was the case, then the quote below would have given neither official an easy way out.

He said that he “caught a glimpse”
from the corner of his eye of the event which he said was sufficient for a
report of foul play to be made to the referee. He said he saw Burger’s
hand move from one side of Lions No 11 ’s face to the other side at the
eye region

d'Oracle

I don't think anyone can say that he was looking straight at the incident.

If he was, then he is a crap ref/linesman. Cos there is a lot going on to look at.

He should be commended for spotting it, alerting the ref and telling the ref his opinion. The ref didnt ask for a recommendation as usual, he asked if it was a yellow card. Bryce said "at least a yellow" the ref is the one who wussed out.

In fairness, I couldnt even see the hand move across the face. I saw Burger hanging on to Lukes eye socket like it was for dear life. Which is more than bad enough.

Nelson Muntz

Profiler wrote: »

source

"ARU managing director John O`Neill and Wallaby coach Eddie Jones said Ben Tune had been an innocent victim, admitting officials should have come clean about his use of the banned drug to treat a serious knee infection 18 months ago".

Fair enough. I knew it would be the Ben Tune thing. The story at the time was that he had knee surgery, got an infection & was given something by the hospital doc that turned out to be on the banned list.

Chucky the tree

Profiler wrote: »

I’m not sure what you mean when you say birthplace issue, What I am saying is there is a clear gulf between the NH and the SH in terms of what is deemed acceptable.

Back in the 90’s when I played, raking or giving a player a good shoeing was seen in two distinct ways. In the NH you got a few “brushes” of the scum halfs studs for being in his way at a ruck In the SH it was open season on you, every opposition player saw it as their right to use your back/face as a door mat, you got yourself there tough luck and your fault if you lost an eye or needed a few stitches.

The ARU turned a blind eye to players recovering from serious injuries taking steroids as part of their recovery, in the NH that would have been taboo.

What I am saying is the IRB are not going to try and close that NH/SH gap when a world cup is on the horizon.

There is quite a lot of hype about the Burger incident, what caused most of that hype was what PDV said.

If he had condemned Burger that would have been the end of it, the IRB would have done nothing, there would have been no statement.

As a consequence of PDV's stupid reaction to this the IRB have to be seen to be doing something.

The reality is they will do nothing, that's all I am saying.

If they were really serious about tacking gouging then after the Dylan Hartley affair they would have brought in a mandatory 12 to 24 month ban.

The Burger incident in my view will change nothing.

Since when has SH(I don't even like saying SH, I think throwing in 3 completely different countries and citing them as one group is wrong in this instance) deemed eye gouging acceptable? As I said sergio Parrisse plays for Italy, an NH team(he was born in Argentina though) and he got 8 weeks for eye gouging.

Again blaming the whole SH for being lax with drugs because of one minor incident is very unfair. I have a very hazy memory about this but didn't an irish player take something that was banned which he was given to on a Lions(possibly) trip? I think it was to help with his asthma.

Recently the trend for eye gouging incidents has gone

- Hartley 26 weeks
- Best 18 weeks
- Quinnlan 12 weeks
- Burger and Parisse 8 weeks
- Corry 6 weeks(unintenional contact with eye area)

For some reason there quite a difference in the length of time of those bans. Hartley is an obvious exception since he did twice in one game and was cleared on a 3rd incident. However the other incidents have been similar enough, to be honest I think Bests' could of been the lightest of them all yet he gets the longer ban. To me it seems the IRB don't like how some bans have been given and want to be able to appeal decisions in favour of a longer sentence. I certainly don't think Aus, NZ or SA RU deeming this unfair or wrong.

d'Oracle

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Since when has SH(I don't even like saying SH, I think throwing in 3 completely different countries as citing them as one group is wrong in this instance) deemed eye gouging acceptable?

Never.

And your right.
Especially in view of the recent infighting and posturing over the Super 15.

Stealdo

d'Oracle wrote: »

I don't think anyone can say that he was looking straight at the incident.

If he was, then he is a crap ref/linesman. Cos there is a lot going on to look at.

He said it himself....the quote I posted on the last page is word for word what he said to Berdos - "I could see it clearly, it was clearly fingers in the eye area"

d'Oracle wrote: »

He should be commended for spotting it, alerting the ref and telling the ref his opinion. The ref didnt ask for a recommendation as usual, he asked if it was a yellow card. Bryce said "at least a yellow" the ref is the one who wussed out.

He Should be commended for spotting it and condemned for not dealing with it. Having watched the interactions a couple of times it seems that Berdos didn't actually understand what he was being told, which coupled with what he said to Burger (something like "Your finger, I don't know, is dangerous") and the previous week's shambles.
He actually didn't ask for a recommendation at all. He was walking away presumably to only give a penalty when Lawrence called him back to tell him it should be 'at least a yellow' which means nothing other than give him a yellow considering the referee hadn't seen it himself, how can he make the call? The fault lies with both of them, one for not ensuring he understood what happened, the other for not having the courage to say red card, and then for not having the courage to admit that he made a mistake, and for then lying to the enquiry.

d'Oracle

Stealdo wrote: »

He said it himself....the quote I posted on the last page is word for word what he said to Berdos - "I could see it clearly, it was clearly fingers in the eye area"

Fair enough.

I'm wouldn't condemn him, though.
But I'm not going to go on about it.

Perhaps the ref didn't know the word gouge in English?

MG

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Recently the trend for eye gouging incidents has gone

- Hartley 26 weeks
- Best 18 weeks
- Quinnlan 12 weeks
- Burger and Parisse 8 weeks
- Corry 6 weeks(unintenional contact with eye area)

Just to clarify, Quinlan was not done for eye gouging. Similarly to Corry he was done for unintentional contact with the eye area - there was no contact with the eye.

TarfHead

Maybe the word 'apology' means something different in Afrikaans :rolleyes: ?

http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/rugby/2009/0702/1224249950972.html

Stealdo

d'Oracle wrote: »

Fair enough.

I'm wouldn't condemn him, though.
But I'm not going to go on about it.

Perhaps the ref didn't know the word gouge in English?

Condemn might be a bit of a harsh word.

I have a feeling the only word that Berdos really understood through the conversation was 'yellow'

d'Oracle

TarfHead wrote: »

Maybe the word 'apology' means something different in Afrikaans :rolleyes: ?

http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/rugby/2009/0702/1224249950972.html

Clearly not.

He apologised to His fans and Team mates for getting carded.

He is making a point of not apologising, seemingly cos he feels he didn't do anything wrong.
Which is his perogative.

What you or I think or make of that doesn't matter.

d'Oracle

Stealdo wrote: »

Condemn might be a bit of a harsh word.

I have a feeling the only word that Berdos really understood through the conversation was 'yellow'

I suspect you may be right.
If it had been Rolland or Barnes (to pick two native english speakers off the top of my head) do you think Schalke would have got 70 minutes of rugby?

I reckon not.