Heaslip [not] cited for eye-gouging

ch2008

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_5733820,00.html

does anyone have any idea where or when this alleged offence occured? I will reserve judgement until any evidence is produced.

But this will be bad news win or lose for Ireland. That's 3 high profile players being accused in one season! 2 of whom received lengthy bans

stephen_n

My first thoughts on this would be they have some cheek, but I suppose until there is some video footage of the incident it's hard to say what happened!

gcgirl

The Springboks have asked it to be reviewed he has not been cited yet! Sore bloody losers if you ask me cheek of them !

"There's no doubt Tony got a facial, that's how he described it," :eek:

Charming description

jd007

And what about Petersens high tackle ffs......

DonkeyPokerTour

jd007 wrote: »

And what about Petersen's clothesline ffs......

FYP

Hyperbullet

jd007 wrote: »

And what about Petersens high tackle ffs......

Any wrestler in the wwe would have been proud of that clothesline..

Has this been actually confirmed yet? I dont remember any incident in the match where this occured. And considering Jenning's ban and the recent clampdown on gouging surely Heaslip's not that stupid to go and do it.

Sour grapes by the Boks methinks.

peterako

ch2008 wrote: »

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_5733820,00.html

Boks....

Pot....kettle

If Heaslip gouged, then he desrves a ban.

Big 'if' though.

PhatPiggins

peterako wrote: »

Boks....

Pot....kettle

If Heaslip gouged, then he desrves a ban.

Big 'if' though.

What worries me is what exactly they are classifying as a gouge these days. While it takes a special type of player to do what Burger did it would be very easy for an ultra abrassive forward like Heaslip to make accidental contact with the eye area, akin to Jennings.

Do I think he'd do it deliberatley , no.

Accidentally, it could happen to any of the Irish 8 the way they played on saturday.

Noffles

If he has actually gouged then it's too bad and the ban should be accepted and the citing justified...

If not, then it's just like we (Wales) moaned about the high tackle from Carter only a couple of weeks ago.. Sour grapes.

lobber

jd007 wrote: »

And what about Petersens high tackle ffs......

OR when Becker dropped a knee on Wallace!!!! That was seen by the linesman on the day and shown on replays. Very dangerous imo.

twinytwo

lobber wrote: »

OR when Becker dropped a knee on Wallace!!!! That was seen by the linesman on the day and shown on replays. Very dangerous imo.

Could you expect less from the team that holds the record for the most yellow cards..72 last time i checked.. and burger holds the record for the most individual cards 5 or 6 cant remember which.

Sundy

ch2008 wrote: »

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_5733820,00.html

Read the article, he has not been cited. Big difference between that and being accused by PDV

Otacon

Not specifically to do with this case, but does anyone remember that time, not too long ago, when matches were not almost always followed by citings and bannings.

I can honestly not remember it being this bad. There are citings everywhere, for example that joke of a decision to cite and ban Carter for the high challenge.

Is it because the game has become dirtier or is it trigger-happy citing officials?

Podge_irl

Otacon wrote: »

Is it because the game has become dirtier or is it trigger-happy citing officials?

The latter I think. There are more cameras and more people watching the games so with a similar level of foul play, more of it is being picked up. Then you get knee-jerk responses from the IRB after things like the speak tackle on BOD or Burger's gouging so that any remotely similar offence is pounced upon.

lobber

Podge_irl wrote: »

The latter I think. There are more cameras and more people watching the games so with a similar level of foul play, more of it is being picked up. Then you get knee-jerk responses from the IRB after things like the speak tackle on BOD or Burger's gouging so that any remotely similar offence is pounced upon.

Also i think players themselves no longer tolerate malicious acts and are `more likely to speak up when it happens to them!

twinytwo

Podge_irl wrote: »

The latter I think. There are more cameras and more people watching the games so with a similar level of foul play, more of it is being picked up. Then you get knee-jerk responses from the IRB after things like the speak tackle on BOD or Burger's gouging so that any remotely similar offence is pounced upon.

or maybe its the officals trying to justify their sa;aries

gcgirl

Sundy wrote: »

Read the article, he has not been cited. Big difference between that and being accused by PDV

Just like what i said earlier maybe the op should change the title of the thread

Teferi

Sometimes I think SA go out of their way to piss on their international image. Fair enough, accuse him. But not after your team clotheslines a lad ffs.

lobber

They act like they are being victimised 'just cos they are so good' whether they are perpetrating or on the receiving end of an alleged offense.

Grow up pdv!

irishbucsfan

If Heaslip did gouge anyone then he deserves to be banned. And if he did then the South African's have every right to ask for him to be cited.

Its not up to them whether or not Pietersen is cited for the clothesline or Roussow (I think it was him, might be wrong, cant remember straight) is cited for the knee drop. They can only ensure justice is served on their side. If Heaslip did it he deserves a ban, fair enough.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If Heaslip did gouge anyone then he deserves to be banned. And if he did then the South African's have every right to ask for him to be cited.

Its not up to them whether or not Pietersen is cited for the clothesline or Roussow (I think it was him, might be wrong, cant remember straight) is cited for the knee drop. They can only ensure justice is served on their side. If Heaslip did it he deserves a ban, fair enough.

exactly this

smurphy29

Does anyone have an idea what incident they are referring to, and what it looks like on the tape?

ozt9vdujny3srf

This isn't the first time I have clicked on a thread here to find the title is an exaggeration or embellishment of the actual content of the original post.

For people starting threads: You aren't trying to sell tabloid newspapers with eyecatching (arf arf) headlines here, your post title should not be misleading nor does it need to be sensationalist.

danthefan

What a misleading title. He has not been cited, yet anyway.

Otacon

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If Heaslip did gouge anyone then he deserves to be banned. And if he did then the South African's have every right to ask for him to be cited.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that, if it was the case that he had gouged. However, nothing has happened so far so it is all speculation.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Its not up to them whether or not Pietersen is cited for the clothesline or Roussow (I think it was him, might be wrong, cant remember straight) is cited for the knee drop.

It was Bekker. It also wasn't just a knee-drop, he clearly punched Wallace also. Chris White should have pushed Owens for a card.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They can only ensure justice is served on their side. If Heaslip did it he deserves a ban, fair enough.

Also, very true, though I haven't seen Ireland ask for the incidents above to be investigated.

irishbucsfan

Otacon wrote: »

It was Bekker. It also wasn't just a knee-drop, he clearly punched Wallace also. Chris White should have pushed Owens for a card.

Thats right it was Bekker. He definitely deserves to be banned for it, it was disgraceful. I can only imagine Chris White didn't see the entire thing...

Otacon wrote: »

Also, very true, though I haven't seen Ireland ask for the incidents above to be investigated.

Maybe we have, and we just didn't go to the press with it. I'm sure there's a possibility that can happen. Or maybe the management feel the two offenses are so clear that they will surely be punished. Obviously Bekker should recieve a ban (If Jennings got 12 weeks for what he did, then Bekker deserves serious time, I know they're two completely different offenses and so shouldnt be compared, but what Bekker did was seriously dangerous) and if Carter was banned for his "high tackle" then I think Pietersen has to go as well.

Ciaran-Irl

They are all supposed to be back in three weeks for next season, right? Pieterson and Bekker probably want some extra time off, so they figure a bit of a ban is the easiest way to do it.

mink_man

sore losers

Hippo

Apparently citing commissioner found there was no case to answer (RTE), sorry, no link.

danthefan

As has been said, ridiculous thread title.

Heaslip will not face gouging charge

Monday, 30 November 2009 16:59

RTÉ Sport understands that Jamie Heaslip will not be cited as a result of an alleged incident in Ireland's Test against South Africa on Saturday.

The Springboks requested match citing commissioner Douglas Hunter to investigate claims that Heaslip stuck his finger into the eye of Heinrich Brüssow.

However, RTÉ Sport understands that Heaslip does not have a case to answer and will not face any sanction by the IRB.

Earlier, the South Africans claimed the incident happened in the first half of the Guinness November Series clash, which Ireland won by 15-10 thanks to five Jonathan Sexton penalty kicks.

The claim follows on from Schalk Burger's eight-week ban for gouging on Irish wing Luke Fitzgerald in the opening seconds of the second Lions Test this summer and is the latest instalment of 'bad blood' between the sides.

A refusal to share post-match drinks during the Lions tour, and the South Africans' failure to clap their opponents off the field on Saturday are among other recent rancourous incidents.

Match citing commisioner Douglas Hunter had noted the complaint and was due to investigage the incident and review video evidence, if any exists, before deciding whether to cite Heaslip.

bigfeller

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2009/1130/heaslipj_brussowh.html

Edit - Beaten by dan

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2009/1130/heaslipj_brussowh.html

gcgirl

If you look at this picture it shows that your man clearly has his hand on Heaslip's face! lol



Is he trying to pick Jamies nose?????

Ciaran-Irl

I reckon one of the saffers will be cited for ripping a rare, collector item White jersey.

Eyes will heal, but that jersey is gone for good.

conf101

So I assume that since the 48 hour window for citing has passed then none of the incidents in the match were deemed bad enough for a citing? I find this pretty shocking!

conneem-TT

conf101 wrote: »

So I assume that since the 48 hour window for citing has passed then none of the incidents in the match were deemed bad enough for a citing? I find this pretty shocking!

Absolutely, the high tackle which somewhat could be argued on their side to be a bad reaction but even worse for me the knee drop onto the mid forearm, pre meditated and which could have easily caused a break.

ven0m

gcgirl wrote: »

If you look at this picture it shows that your man clearly has his hand on Heaslip's face! lol



Is he trying to pick Jamies nose?????

Didn't Shane Jennings get a 12 week ban for 'contact to the face' ..... seems to me SOMEONE else should be given a 12 week marching order, & about another 5 from the Saffies for the high tackles/dangerous play.

peterako

conf101 wrote: »

So I assume that since the 48 hour window for citing has passed then none of the incidents in the match were deemed bad enough for a citing? I find this pretty shocking!

Advance apology! This is a hobby horse of mine.

If indeed there are to be no citings from the match, what sort of message does the above (inaction by the citers) send out?

Not a good one, especially considering how blatent many of the incidents were in the match.....

bamboozle

must say i'm really suprised that neither JB Peiterson or Bekker have been cited. Dan Carter got a week for a tackle that wasnt as bad as Pieterson.

Maybe SA threatening to cite Heaslip resulted in the IRFU not applying pressure on the citing commissioner to cite their 2 lads.

bamboozle

bamboozle wrote: »

Maybe SA threatening to cite Heaslip resulted in the IRFU not applying pressure on the citing commissioner to cite their 2 lads.

I would've expected exactly the opposite to happen.

SA didn't threaten to cite Heaslip as they have no power over this, they did ask the citing commissioner to look at an incident however, and the commissioner found absolutely no case.

Chucky the tree

ven0m wrote: »

Didn't Shane Jennings get a 12 week ban for 'contact to the face' ..... seems to me SOMEONE else should be given a 12 week marching order, & about another 5 from the Saffies for the high tackles/dangerous play.

No Jennings never got banned for making contact with the face.

ven0m

Chucky the tree wrote: »

No Jennings never got banned for making contact with the face.

Look at the video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeC8oGxrA9Q

is that eye gouging? Looks more like facial contact to me & any other reasonable person who watches it ......

the full statement around the hearing is gas to read - http://www.ercrugby.com/images/content/cupstandard/Shane_Jennings_Independent_Diciplinary_Decision.pdf