Rougerie 'gouging' McCaw

pappyodaniel

I've only seen this video today so apologies if already posted. It doesn't look good but NZ didn't make an issue out of it seeing as they won the WC. What's the standard procedure with an incident like this? Can he be independently cited?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FQkwYfqDnU

pickarooney

The time for citing on it elapsed after about 48 hours so I think the only ones that could conceivably take action are the FFR if they wanted to ban him.

Gelio

pickarooney wrote: »

The time for citing on it elapsed after about 48 hours so I think the only ones that could conceivably take action are the FFR if they wanted to ban him.

Unlikely

JonathanAnon

Funny, they didnt repeat the incident of McCaw kneeing and punching Parra in the head.. but we have this one from all angles.. You'd think they just be happy the ref gave them the game and forget about it..

CatFromHue

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Funny, they didnt repeat the incident of McCaw kneeing and punching Parra in the head.. but we have this one from all angles.. You'd think they just be happy the ref gave them the game and forget about it..

My God!

Parra incident below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wr8OU3hRiw

Punching? is that why McCaws wrist folds on contact? If he was punching his wrist would have been rigid.

Kneeing? This is correct but imagine Parra wasn't there and you'll find that McCaw would have done the exact same leg movement. It was just unfortunate that Parra stuck his head up when he did.

SuprSi

I agree, Parra's head was on the way up, into the path of McCaw's knee. I don't think there was anything deliberate there. The gouge is far worse than that.

iroced

What makes me the most uncomfortable in this video is the complacently ironical smiles on the presenters face. It's almost as if they look "happy" to have found that "incident" like if... they had been searching for some (accusing Dusautoir at first, I think it was some headline on the NZ Herald). And justifying not to cite Rougerie because you won the WC is actually weird. I mean it's not playschool "ok we won the WC so we tolerate some little bit of gouging" but "had we been beaten, Rougerie was out for 6 months or more". If they believe that's a clear gouging attempt, go for it. Strange logic all of that...

Before my words get misinterpreted, I'd like to make it clear I'm not going down the "conspiracy" road. I'm just looking and analysing the facts and thinking that rugby has too much become a "political" game...

CatFromHue

I've no idea why McCaw or NZ didn't make a bigger deal of it. I know if someone did that to me at the level I used to play at, it was not international or nowhere near it, I would have gone after the culprit. Granted he may he beaten the bejaysus out of me but I would not have stood for it.

You imply, iroced, that the NZ media went looking for something to cast the French in a bad light. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but what they found should have put Rougerie out of the game for a long time.

When you get to international level of anything politics come into play. In my opinion politics are keeping Rougerie still legally playing now i.e. the FRU should ban him but won't to keep Clermont happy.

EKClarke

CatFromHue wrote: »

I've no idea why McCaw or NZ didn't make a bigger deal of it. I know if someone did that to me at the level I used to play at, it was not international or nowhere near it, I would have gone after the culprit. Granted he may he beaten the bejaysus out of me but I would not have stood for it.

You imply, iroced, that the NZ media went looking for something to cast the French in a bad light. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but what they found should have put Rougerie out of the game for a long time.

When you get to international level of anything politics come into play. In my opinion politics are keeping Rougerie still legally playing now i.e. the FRU should ban him but won't to keep Clermont happy.

I agree with you but the same can be said for Umaga and Mealamu.

iroced

CatFromHue wrote: »

You imply, iroced, that the NZ media went looking for something to cast the French in a bad light. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but what they found should have put Rougerie out of the game for a long time.

In fairness I don't know... I'm just getting confused of the whole thing. I remember seeing the picture of Dusautoir and McCaw in a ruck where you couldn't see anything and the NZ Herald saying "Dusautoir gouging blablabla". Then we got this close range video of Rougerie. Then you can add the "special" treatment France got during the whole WC from the NZ Press. There was also this gouging accusation against Bonnaire after the group phase game that happened to be fallacious. I don't think this kind of mentality are any good for rugby. Though I'm not saying Rougerie shouldn't be penalised and these "actions" severely punished. I also think that all of the "playing with the rules" that McCaw made himself a specialist (but he's not the only one) should be penalised too. I don't know... I can see, without excusing it, some of this "violence" being the consequence of this kind of "cheating" and vice versa.. And the more I look at it in hindsight and the more I can really see this game in 10-15 years being the same mascarade than the last year Barca-Real in soccer with "butchers" on one side and "divers" on the other. I just don't want that.

CatFromHue wrote: »

When you get to international level of anything politics come into play. In my opinion politics are keeping Rougerie still legally playing now i.e. the FRU should ban him but won't to keep Clermont happy.

That's what I'm saying. Politics is killing the game. Everywhere.

swordofislam

That's EYES. But it isn't a gouge. No way did Rougerie deliberately set out to injure McCaw. McCaw on the other did set out to injure Parra and he succeeded. New Zealand under Graham Henry have form in deliberately injuring opposing players.

A guy like McCaw is going to have a positional sense such that he knows where his body is at all times.

pappyodaniel

swordofislam wrote: »

McCaw on the other did set out to injure Parra and he succeeded.

No he didn't. It was an accidental knee to the head. McCaw hits rucks at a ferocious pace with one eye on the ball and another on the guy he's gonna clear out. I have to admit the Rougerie incident looked quite bad though. He's a very lucky boy.

CatFromHue

iroced wrote: »

In fairness I don't know... I'm just getting confused of the whole thing. I remember seeing the picture of Dusautoir and McCaw in a ruck where you couldn't see anything and the NZ Herald saying "Dusautoir gouging blablabla". Then we got this close range video of Rougerie. Then you can add the "special" treatment France got during the whole WC from the NZ Press. There was also this gouging accusation against Bonnaire after the group phase game that happened to be fallacious. I don't think this kind of mentality are any good for rugby. Though I'm not saying Rougerie shouldn't be penalised and these "actions" severely punished. I also think that all of the "playing with the rules" that McCaw made himself a specialist (but he's not the only one) should be penalised too. I don't know... I can see, without excusing it, some of this "violence" being the consequence of this kind of "cheating" and vice versa.. And the more I look at it in hindsight and the more I can really see this game in 10-15 years being the same mascarade than the last year Barca-Real in soccer with "butchers" on one side and "divers" on the other. I just don't want that.



That's what I'm saying. Politics is killing the game. Everywhere.

I would be worried of that too. You can see bits of diving creeping into the game, typically it's an up and under where the kicker runs into someone and then hits the deck. Diving is one of the reasons I no longer watch soccer I find it embarrassing to watch to be honest.

I wasn't in NZ for the WC so can't fully comment but considering the French have knocked the Kiwis out of the 2 WCs and were in their pool they were always going to get unfavourable press.

Brain Stroking

CatFromHue wrote: »

I would be worried of that too. You can see bits of diving creeping into the game, typically it's an up and under where the kicker runs into someone and then hits the deck. Diving is one of the reasons I no longer watch soccer I find it embarrassing to watch to be honest.

I wasn't in NZ for the WC so can't fully comment but considering the French have knocked the Kiwis out of the 2 WCs and were in their pool they were always going to get unfavourable press.

If diving put you off watching football then i doubt you were that into football in the first place. Why cut your nose off to spite your face? Then again, maybe you only started watching football in the first place due to a notion in your head that players didnt dive. Which would be a similarly flawed starting point so i would guess that you are just one of the handwringing brigade that always love a good whine. Plus, i would also bet that you do watch football (not that you'll ever admit it).

As for the gouging: it should be cited and the player punished if it is there for us all to see. I amnt surprised that NZ didnt have him cited. Nothing surprises me with them. They are a strange country when it comes to rugby in my opinion.
As for McCaw: clearly an accidental knee. He does enough illegal things yet is castigated for this. Priorities people.
And all of this keeps the aftermath of the World Cup Final firmly focussed away from Joubert, the real villain of the piece

CatFromHue

Brain Stroking wrote: »

If diving put you off watching football then i doubt you were that into football in the first place. Why cut your nose off to spite your face? Then again, maybe you only started watching football in the first place due to a notion in your head that players didnt dive. Which would be a similarly flawed starting point so i would guess that you are just one of the handwringing brigade that always love a good whine. Plus, i would also bet that you do watch football (not that you'll ever admit it).

As for the gouging: it should be cited and the player punished if it is there for us all to see. I amnt surprised that NZ didnt have him cited. Nothing surprises me with them. They are a strange country when it comes to rugby in my opinion.
As for McCaw: clearly an accidental knee. He does enough illegal things yet is castigated for this. Priorities people.
And all of this keeps the aftermath of the World Cup Final firmly focussed away from Joubert, the real villain of the piece

Not really, soccer was my first sport. I didn't like rugby until I got older. When I first started playing and watching soccer (by watching I mean the English first division / Premiership) there was no diving, we're talking before the Premiership and then its early days. I'm sure there was a small amount of diving but nothing like the large scale amount we have now. I do watch soccer occasionally but these games would just be Ireland games and not club games. On the odd time that I do find myself watching an English Premiership or Champions League game I don't watch it for long. There are some aspects I still like of it but the diving and then the surrounding of the ref I find embarrassing for grown men to do. Ultimately I just turn it off then.

If you want to look through my posting history I think you might find that I keeping the whining to a minimum. Even look at my posts on this thread, there isn't much whining there.

To the best of my knowledge a team can't cite a player anymore. It's done by an independent commissioner.

Now I'm off to watch some association footba.....eh I mean read a book!

[Jackass]

CatFromHue wrote: »

My God!

Parra incident below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wr8OU3hRiw

Punching? is that why McCaws wrist folds on contact? If he was punching his wrist would have been rigid.

Kneeing? This is correct but imagine Parra wasn't there and you'll find that McCaw would have done the exact same leg movement. It was just unfortunate that Parra stuck his head up when he did.

It mightn't look like much, but this was Parra's face the next day...

CatFromHue

[Jackass] wrote: »

It mightn't look like much, but this was Parra's face the next day...

http://www.rugbydump.com/media/posts/6711f2c7a598fe53a34d2b68c58b18ae.jpg

I didn't say it wasn't much just that it wasn't a punch nor was it an intentional knee from McCaw.

MyKeyG

SuprSi wrote: »

I agree, Parra's head was on the way up, into the path of McCaw's knee. I don't think there was anything deliberate there. The gouge is far worse than that.

The gouge is worse but McCaw absolutely lead with the knee. Para's head was coming up!!!:rolleyes:

CatFromHue

MyKeyG wrote: »

The gouge is worse but McCaw absolutely lead with the knee. Para's head was coming up!!!:rolleyes:

Of course he lead with the knee. He was trying to clear out Dusatoir and so needed to get a good leg position!

MyKeyG

CatFromHue wrote: »

Of course he lead with the knee. He was trying to clear out Dusatoir and so needed to get a good leg position!

That's absolutely no excuse. The laws of the game are clear on players being responsible for the safety of their opposite numbers in engagements.

10.4 (h) A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without
use of the arms, or without grasping a player

CatFromHue

MyKeyG wrote: »

That's absolutely no excuse. The laws of the game are clear on players being responsible for the safety of their opposite numbers in engagements.

10.4 (h) A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without
use of the arms, or without grasping a player

Edit: hadn't seen you edited your post.

I don't view what McCaw did as charging.

MyKeyG

CatFromHue wrote: »

Edit: hadn't seen you edited your post.

I don't view what McCaw did as charging.

Well it would appear the IRB do. McCaw engages the ruck and makes contact without using the arms, by the letter of the law it's charging.

My take on what happened to Thom Evans is that Byrne makes a legitimate effort at a legal tackle and Evans ducks his head, by his own admission, causing the injurious impact.

A terrible unfortunate event. But where Evans impact was by means of his own momentum and action Parras was caused by McCaws momentum engaging the ruck illegally.

CatFromHue

I dissagree I think McCaw engages the ruck legally as he hit Dusatoir, who he is trying to clear out, with his arms.

If what you're saying is true then we could have a new type of rucking emerge. If the tackler sits up the attacking team can't engage the ruck until he is out of the way enabling the defending team to rob the ball easily.

yammycat

Probably trying to get some payback for the assault on his team mate

Hagz

yammycat wrote: »

Probably trying to get some payback for the assault on his team mate

That's a pretty childish view to be honest. So because McCaw kneed Parra in the head (which from all evidence provided appears to be accidental), that gives Rougerie justification to head-butt him and rake his eyes.

There are 3 things I took from this final.

1. NZ should have been fined for the haka, not France.
2. Joubert was undoubtedly swayed by the occasion.
3. Rougerie should, if there is to be any respectability within the IRB, at least get a 7 month+ ban.

MyKeyG

CatFromHue wrote: »

I dissagree I think McCaw engages the ruck legally as he hit Dusatoir, who he is trying to clear out, with his arms.

If what you're saying is true then we could have a new type of rucking emerge. If the tackler sits up the attacking team can't engage the ruck until he is out of the way enabling the defending team to rob the ball easily.

OK I agree, good point. The unfortunate thing is the tackler has to make every effort possible to roll away or else he gets penalised even if he's not making any definite effort to interfere with the ruck illegally.

Maybe the answer lies in more discreet refereeing at the ruck.

yammycat

Hagz wrote: »

That's a pretty childish view to be honest. So because McCaw kneed Parra in the head (which from all evidence provided appears to be accidental), that gives Rougerie justification to head-butt him and rake his eyes.

There are 3 things I took from this final.

1. NZ should have been fined for the haka, not France.
2. Joubert was undoubtedly swayed by the occasion.
3. Rougerie should, if there is to be any respectability within the IRB, at least get a 7 month+ ban.

Sorry but there is no way running over an unsighted person on the ground in the process of righting themselves and taking no precaution as to whether you knee them in the head could in any way be construed as accidental, Mccaw knew he was there and went in hard with his knee on the off chance that he would get lucky and connect, if he didnt connect well no harm done just play away, he did get lucky however and parra was off.

The raking incident was not pretty however if players can't rely on the ref to protect them from life endangering, and a knee to the head is that, foul play well you will find they resort to their own methods of trying to discourage the behaviour.

What should have happened is maccaw was given a red card and a very lenghty ban, at least a year and players won't have to resort to their own means.

MyKeyG

Hagz wrote: »

That's a pretty childish view to be honest. So because McCaw kneed Parra in the head (which from all evidence provided appears to be accidental), that gives Rougerie justification to head-butt him and rake his eyes.

Hold on a second now! If it's accidental contact with the knee then it's just as easily accidental contact with the head. You can't have it all!!!

I do agree though that if there was anything intentional by way of pay back then it was indeed childish.

yammycat

MyKeyG wrote: »

I do agree though that if there was anything intentional by way of pay back then it was indeed childish.

So you are playing a game of contact sport where serious injuries can occur and the referee has plainly displayed himself to be favouring one side and not penalizing them for foul play including dangerous foul play like high tackles and one of your team mates is seriously injured by a reckless at best and probably intentional knee to the head and it's 'childish' to react.

The fault lies with the poor refereeing of the game. The reason why the incident was never persued by NZ is because the issue of the one sided refereeing and the fact the French had no one bar themselves to look out for their safety would have arisen

MyKeyG

yammycat wrote: »

So you are playing a game of contact sport where serious injuries can occur and the referee has plainly displayed himself to be favouring one side and not penalizing them for foul play including dangerous foul play like high tackles and one of your team mates is seriously injured by a reckless at best and probably intentional knee to the head and it's 'childish' to react.

The fault lies with the poor refereeing of the game. The reason why the incident was never persued by NZ is because the issue of the one sided refereeing and the fact the French had no one bar themselves to look out for their safety would have arisen

Players very often react at the time, in the heat of the moment, that I understand if not condone. But to bottle it up and wait for retribution later in the game is unprofessional, unsporting and yes very certainly childish. I'm not convinced that's what actually happened here but if it is then I stand by my criticism.

I joined this thread in agreement with McCaw being brutal with his engagement at the ruck but having watched it a few times he makes an unfortunate contact with his knee attempting to clear Dausitoir out.

At the end of the day if the refereeing was poor then that's a matter for the IRB. I'm not going to hold it against the AB's.

Hagz

yammycat wrote: »

Sorry but there is no way running over an unsighted person on the ground in the process of righting themselves and taking no precaution as to whether you knee them in the head could in any way be construed as accidental, Mccaw knew he was there and went in hard with his knee on the off chance that he would get lucky and connect, if he didnt connect well no harm done just play away, he did get lucky however and parra was off.

The raking incident was not pretty however if players can't rely on the ref to protect them from life endangering, and a knee to the head is that, foul play well you will find they resort to their own methods of trying to discourage the behaviour.

What should have happened is maccaw was given a red card and a very lenghty ban, at least a year and players won't have to resort to their own means.

Firstly you have no proof, whether you believe so or not, that McCaw's knee on Parra was intentional. You can spout on all you like about whatever theory you have, but there is no proof of anything. There is on the other hand, clear cut proof that Rougerie intentionally raked the eyes of McCaw. While you can only speculate on the McCaw incident, there is no speculation involved in the Rougerie incident.

Secondly, your point was that Rougerie was "getting revenge", which at the end of the day is not a justified reason for raking another players eyes.

MyKeyG wrote: »

Hold on a second now! If it's accidental contact with the knee then it's just as easily accidental contact with the head. You can't have it all!!!

I do agree though that if there was anything intentional by way of pay back then it was indeed childish.

You can argue that the head-butt was accidental, I won't deny that it could have been. However, considering he had the intention of raking McCaw's eyes, I would be under the assumption that he knew what he was doing by head-butting McCaw, that coupled with the fact that a player should not lead with the head anyway, and why would they unless they had malicious intentions.

MyKeyG

Players engage a ruck high or low depending on where the ball/player being cleared is. Leading with the head or leading with the knee. They're both accidental or they're not IMO.

yammycat

MyKeyG wrote: »

but having watched it a few times he makes an unfortunate contact with his knee attempting

When you knowingly run over players lying on the ground who are getting up with no regard for their safety chances are you may be fortunate enough to have an unfortunate contact, that was mccaws aim and that was the end result.

castie

I think he knew he would make contact.
However I dont think he entered the situation for it but more despite it.

MyKeyG

yammycat wrote: »

When you knowingly run over players lying on the ground who are getting up with no regard for their safety chances are you may be fortunate enough to have an unfortunate contact, that was mccaws aim and that was the end result.

Come on we've all played rugby at some level at one time I'm sure. We've all 'knowingly'[/1] crashed, banged, walloped into or over players while trying to clear a ruck. Unfortunately hands, heads and knees go all over the place. That's the nature of the game. If you're in the ruck you do your best to protect yourself. If McCaw didn't make that challenge Dausitoir gets the ball and the turnover.

At the start of this thread I was with you but Para does raise his head. The unfortunate thing is that if he doesn't move he gets pinged for not rolling away even if he's not interfering with the ruck, so like I said in another post maybe the solution lies with more discreet refereeing.

Reloc8

The Parra thing is no foul.

The Rougerie incident is a clear gouge and should have been dealt with as such.

Whether Rougerie headbutted deliberately or not is impossible to say from the footage.

yammycat

Hagz wrote: »

Firstly you have no proof, whether you believe so or not, that McCaw's knee on Parra was intentional. You can spout on all you like about whatever theory you have, but there is no proof of anything. There is on the other hand, clear cut proof that Rougerie intentionally raked the eyes of McCaw.

Sorry but there is no more proof that Rougerie intentionally raked McCaw than there is that McCaw kneed Parra intentionally, you are purely speculating, neither player was looking at the recipient, perhaps Rougerie thought he saw the ball, who knows, you for one don't.

Hagz

yammycat wrote: »

Sorry but there is no more proof that Rougerie intentionally raked McCaw than there is that McCaw kneed Parra intentionally, you are purely speculating, neither player was looking at the recipient, perhaps Rougerie thought he saw the ball, who knows, you for one don't.

What that's just nonsense in my view so lets just leave it at that.

yammycat

Hagz wrote: »

What that's just nonsense in my view so lets just leave it at that.

Agreed, I'd rather not read anymore of yours either thx

petebricquette

yammycat wrote: »

Sorry but there is no more proof that Rougerie intentionally raked McCaw than there is that McCaw kneed Parra intentionally, you are purely speculating, neither player was looking at the recipient, perhaps Rougerie thought he saw the ball, who knows, you for one don't.

Nope, sorry that is pretty flawed logic. When it comes to things like gouging the onus is on the players to be absolutely certain that their hands aren't in or around the eye area of their opponent. The IRB have been very clear in their policies of the refereeing of such incidents.

McCaw's incident, to me, looks accidental. In the eyes of the citing commissioner and the IRB, anything that looks like gouging (hands making contact with the eye area) is automatically a suspension. Mitigating circumstances are often taken into account but that's another issue. Rougerie should've been cited and banned.

yammycat

petebricquette wrote: »

Nope, sorry that is pretty flawed logic. When it comes to things like gouging the onus is on the players to be absolutely certain that their hands aren't in or around the eye area of their opponent. The IRB have been very clear in their policies of the refereeing of such incidents.

McCaw's incident, to me, looks accidental. In the eyes of the citing commissioner and the IRB, anything that looks like gouging (hands making contact with the eye area) is automatically a suspension. Mitigating circumstances are often taken into account but that's another issue. Rougerie should've been cited and banned.

There's a big difference between how certain individuals interpret an incident and 'proof' of intent.