Gouge or no gouge?

Klunk_NZ

I personally think there is nothing malicious in it. Just a bit of rough-housing gone wrong. Unlike Rougourie, that is a different kettle of fish.

Still raking the eyes on purpose or on accident should not go unpunished. What are your views?

TheKeenMachine

Klunk_NZ wrote: »

I personally think there is nothing malicious in it. Just a bit of rough-housing gone wrong. Unlike Rougourie, that is a different kettle of fish.

Still raking the eyes on purpose or on accident should not go unpunished. What are your views?

I think that given McLaughlin's outstanding disciplinary record (only two penalties conceded in his last 13 HC games) he should be let off with a warning. Clearly no malice involved.

sportfanatic

Doesn't look great, not cited yet so it's probably unlikely he'll get any suspension? McLoughlin's record over the years should stand to him.

danthefan

As I said in the other thread, I think it's worth investigating (i.e. have a hearing). I've spoken in the past on how I just don't agree with bans for anything that's deemed accidental. A ban is supposed to be 1) a punishment and 2) a deterrent. Punishing someone for an accident is pointless and a deterrent is obviously not going to stop accidents from happening. Andrew Trimble did a proper job on Mike Ross' eye in training for example, should he be kicked out of the squad for a while? Obviously not, that would be lunacy.

I'd like to hear McCaw's take on it really. Did he feel any contact/fingers in his eye? If he says he wasn't gouged then case closed.

Grimebox

Perhaps if he isn't punished then it will encourage others who get caught to plead innocent with the hope of getting off

Fishooks12

I'll try not to be biased and say that if it was a NZ player that did it I'd at least want it cited anyway

mar-z

Should be cited as I would have looked for it if it happened the other way.

Don't think he went to gouge him but it was contact to the eye area which was reckless/careless of Locky.

Isn't there a possible lesser charge of 'contact with the eye area' rather than gouging? If so he could possibly get a short ban.

Grimebox

I just found out who people are referring to when they say Locky...

thebaz

does carelessness warrant a ban , real gouging desrves strict banning , but unsighted wrestling around the eye area , come on !

Fishooks12

thebaz wrote: »

does carelessness warrant a ban , real gouging desrves strict banning , but unsighted wrestling around the eye area , come on !

Yep. You mess around with someones eye area and you run the risk. intent doesn't play a part in it

totallegend

I don't see anything in those pictures to suggest gouging, tbh.

thebaz

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Yep. You mess around with someones eye area and you run the risk. intent doesn't play a part in it

well perhaps it should - real gouging has intent , wresting handbags near the eye area are 2 different animals, in my mind

bleg

His hands linger a little bit too long for my liking...

Fishooks12

totallegend wrote: »

I don't see anything in those pictures to suggest gouging, tbh.

I think it's just more carelessness than anything. He should have known better though, you don't go grabbing at a guys face like that regardless of whether he's offside or not

If Owens had seen that from a few feet away without the benefit of a close up he could have come to a different conclusion and sent Locky for a walk

CatFromHue

Having seen McLaughlin play I know he's not a dirty player but what he did was reckless all the same and could have caused a serious injury. I have to say he does deserve a ban of some sort.

Chucky the tree

Definite ban tbh. He is obviously very careless with his hands and if that happens and you get the eye area then you will get banned. He should never be trying to rip a players head back like that in the first place. In the GIf he looks like he gets the TH even worse.

thetl

A bit reckless yes but no bad intention there from kevin would be my opinion

Klunk_NZ

McCaw being 'staunch' and not reporting it just like not reporting Rougerie is actually damaging to the sport and encourages this type of behaviour. I know he thinks he is being maucho and not reporting things like these but I completely disagree. If that was a NZ player doing it to an Irish player it would have been cited, sentenced to death and every rugby forum would have 100 post threads. (BOD ruck clearout anyone?)

norrie rugger

Given the player that he is I see no intention to damage the eye but he definitely lingers far too long around the eye area, which I think IS on purpose.
Had McCaw moved his head the wrong way this could have been very dangerous, so I think that a 3 match ban or something is justified. There is a difference in accidental contact, if we are honest has happened to us or by us at some stage, and actually placing your hand over the eye area.
There is no malice in placing your hand there but it brings up the potential for injury.

It's not a gouge. But it is a cite-able offence. It warrants a citing and due process.

We have to recognise that first of all, a "gouge" is an intentional activity, Attuob's case was a "gouge".

BUT

There's also a case to be answered for any of the above too. "Reckless use of the hands" or something similar would be an adequate title for the offence. If you accidentally blind someone, or intentionally blind someone, you've still blinded them. As a result, people are going to need to be cited continually until players have it absolutely beaten into them that by no means should they ever have a hand/finger around someone's eye area.

The term "gouge" should be kept for when it is clear that intent has been shown. Until that has been proved, "reckless / careless use of the hands" would be a more apt term.

Consider someone driving someone into the ground in a spear tackle, vs someone tackling someone and dropping them in mid air. Both can have the same outcome as each other in terms of damage to the opposition player, but the sentences for each would be different.

Otacon

Has this been cited? When is the deadline?

Personally, I expect a citing and a ban, and I would agree with both too.

mikedragon32

Is there video of this?

Certainly doesn't look good but you can't judge anything on the basis of one still other than carelessness.

Klunk_NZ

Otacon wrote: »

Has this been cited? When is the deadline?

Personally, I expect a citing and a ban, and I would agree with both too.

I think NZ have adopted a 'get on with the game' attitude. Nobody has reported it and play continues.

I am personally against this approach because it sets a dangerous precedent for foul play. But how dare a mere mortal question the NZRFU:(

pickarooney

Klunk_NZ wrote: »

I think NZ have adopted a 'get on with the game' attitude. Nobody has reported it and play continues.

I am personally against this approach because it sets a dangerous precedent for foul play. But how dare a mere mortal question the NZRFU:(

Why would it be up to the NZRFU either way? Is there no independent citing commission for these tests?

Klunk_NZ

pickarooney wrote: »

Why would it be up to the NZRFU either way? Is there no independent citing commission for these tests?

The commission watches footage a couple of times (must have missed it) and accepts complaints from rugby unions (must not have complained).

daveharnett

Klunk_NZ wrote: »

I personally think there is nothing malicious in it. Just a bit of rough-housing gone wrong. Unlike Rougourie, that is a different kettle of fish.

Still raking the eyes on purpose or on accident should not go unpunished. What are your views?

He's pulled on the guy's face, with fingers in or around the eye - exactly the offense that is cited in cases of gouging, since we can only speculate as to a player's intent in these cases.

Note the results on Mccaw's right eye. [Edit: May be unrelated]

danthefan wrote: »

I've spoken in the past on how I just don't agree with bans for anything that's deemed accidental.

There's a spectrum of liability between a freak accident and a deliberate assault. If a player's role in creating a dangerous situation could have reasonably been avoided and the danger could have reasonably been predicted, we shouldn't speculate about his intentions or wait to see the outcome, we should penalize, and encourage the player to take a less risky approach in the future.

Fishooks12

daveharnett wrote: »

He's pulled on the guy's face, with fingers in or around the eye - exactly the offense that is cited in cases of gouging, since we can only speculate as to a player's intent in these cases.

Note the results on Mccaw's right eye.



There's a spectrum of liability between a freak accident and a deliberate assault. If a player's role in creating a dangerous situation could have reasonably been avoided and the danger could have reasonably been predicted, we shouldn't speculate about his intentions or wait to see the outcome, we should penalize, and encourage the player to take a less risky approach in the future.

You've no evidence to suggest that the cuts is a result of the incident.

Klunk_NZ

Fishooks12 wrote: »

You've no evidence to suggest that the cuts is a result of the incident.

I don't even think they are.

Monty Burnz

Grimebox wrote: »

Perhaps if he isn't punished then it will encourage others who get caught to plead innocent with the hope of getting off

They might have trouble trying to retrospectively create an amazing disciplinary record like McLaughlin. Having said that, it doesn't look great - why do players grab at heads in mauls when there's a 50% chance you will have your hand in someone's eye, nose or mouth?

profitius

The pictures looked bad for kmL. He isn't a dirty player though, in fact he is one of the cleanest you can get so he'd have to get the benefit of the doubt. A few weeks suspension for dangerous play would be fair.

sydthebeat

Isnt it an offense for the hand to make contact with the eye area... theres no specific referrence to gouging in the law book.

"A player must not do anything that is dangerous to the opponent"

so the question is, is it a delierate action and is it dangerous to the opponent?

daveharnett

Fishooks12 wrote: »

You've no evidence to suggest that the cuts is a result of the incident.

Fair point, will edit to reflect. At what point in the match did this happen? I didn't notice the damage around the eye until the last few minutes (and I was watching kiwi coverage, so Mccaw was rarely offscreen during stoppages).

daveharnett

sydthebeat wrote: »

Isnt it an offense for the hand to make contact with the eye area... theres no specific referrence to gouging in the law book.

"A player must not do anything that is dangerous to the opponent"

so the question is, is it a delierate action and is it dangerous to the opponent?

I believe it falls under the catch all 10.4m "Acts contrary to good sportsmanship".

The specifics are in the recommended sanctions (http://origin.ercrugby.com/images/content/IRB_Sanctions.pdf)

Contact with Eyes or the Eye Area
Lower End – 12 weeks
Mid Range – 18 weeks
Top End – 24 weeks - 156 weeks

thebaz

I can't believe all the calls for bans - McCaw is a tough player , and probably realises it is was careless but unmalicious (Kev McL was unsighted) and does not want to get a fellow player banned ... so respect to mccaw , so those callig on long bans , maybe you should take a leaf out of mcaws book, rather than brining in Real Madrdid tactics to international rugby and get behind your team

Fishooks12

thebaz wrote: »

I can't believe all the calls for bans - McCaw is a tough player , and probably realises it is was careless but unmalicious (Kev McL was unsighted) and does not want to get a fellow player banned ... so respect to mccaw , so those callig on long bans , maybe you should take a leaf out of mcaws book, rather than brining in Real Madrdid tactics to international rugby and get behind your team

Who's calling for long bans? We all realise that there was no intent to harm, but IMHO it was very careless and Locky is very lucky

Most would agree that it should have been cited and maybe a 2 or 3 week ban for sheer carelessness

Nothing to do with "getting behind your team" or being the bigger man and ignoring it. Careless play like this doesn't have a place in the game and were it a NZ player who did it to an Irish player I would want it cited at least so why change my views on safety in the game just because it's an Irish player?

Cpt_Blackbeard

He repeatedly tried to pull McCaw out of a maul by his face/eye-area. He should be/have been cited and gotten a 12 week ban that was then reduced to 9 weeks. Stupid play.

thebaz

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Nothing to do with "getting behind your team" or being the bigger man and ignoring it. Careless play like this doesn't have a place in the game and were it a NZ player who did it to an Irish player I would want it cited at least so why change my views on safety in the game just because it's an Irish player?

well as usual , lets just disagree - as stated previuolsy , and on other threads I despise REAL gouging , it is a heinous act , and whatever locky did , and it was careless, it is Was not a gouge , i.e. where he went to scrape McCaws eyeball out ! - anyway I'll say no more on this, but respect again to McCaw

Fishooks12

thebaz wrote: »

well as usual , lets just disagree - as stated previuolsy , and on other threads I despise REAL gouging , it is a heinous act , and whatever locky did , and it was careless, it is Was not a gouge , i.e. where he went to scrape McCaws eyeball out ! - anyway I'll say no more on this, but respect again to McCaw

I don't think it was gouging either?! can you find a post where I said this

Careless play isn't excusable because it's careless. it was dangerous and should have been cited as such

thebaz

Fishooks12 wrote: »

I don't think it was gouging either?! can you find a post where I said this

I know you didn't start the thread , but the title, stills and undertoning accusations are of Gouging , which I dont think it was , we both though agree it was careless

daveharnett

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Who's calling for long bans?

I think that incident calls for a few weeks off.

Fishooks12 wrote: »

We all realise that there was no intent to harm

I'm not convinced of that, but I don't think it's particularly relevant: instances of dangerous play should be evaluated based on the physical facts. The contents of the offender's mind have no bearing on whether the incident constituted an offence, and should only help to inform the punishment if if intent is obviously present or obviously absent based on the physical facts.

Rugby is often (and rightly) criticized for the complexity of it's laws. It's also (rightly) criticized for requiring officials to be mind readers. Here is a simple law that does not call for speculation as to intent: contact with the eye or eye area equals a ban. If players keep their hands out of opponents' faces then they can't go wrong.

.ak

I don't think it was a gouge. But it was reckless and what annoys me is that people who use people's heads as a pulling tool to disrupt mauls and rucks. Locky is a niggily player who seems to have picked up a few tricks from Hines in his time at Leinster, so it doesn't exactly surprise me. There should be a warning, no more. Hands make contact with the face all the time during the game, but it is clearly no gouge imo.

Also, there is an incident around the 57:40 (gametime) mark that is very similar. Heaslip's head is used as a tool to pull him out of maul.




Personally I think using people's heads as a pulling tool should be stamped out completely. As far as I'm aware it's not legal and both incidents were in full view of the ref. It can lead to 'accidental' gouging and also it could possibly lead to much worse.

leftleg

.ak wrote: »

I don't think it was a gouge. But it was reckless and what annoys me is that people who use people's heads as a pulling tool to disrupt mauls and rucks. Locky is a niggily player who seems to have picked up a few tricks from Hines in his time at Leinster, so it doesn't exactly surprise me. There should be a warning, no more. Hands make contact with the face all the time during the game, but it is clearly no gouge imo.

Also, there is an incident around the 57:40 (gametime) mark that is very similar. Heaslip's head is used as a tool to pull him out of maul.




Personally I think using people's heads as a pulling tool should be stamped out completely. As far as I'm aware it's not legal and both incidents were in full view of the ref. It can lead to 'accidental' gouging and also it could possibly lead to much worse.

Does this make it all quit's so??

.ak

leftleg wrote: »

Does this make it all quit's so??

:cool: Evens Stevens loike!


Joking aside I think both are not gouging in any way, but Locky's one looks worse.

But both started off with the 'head pulling' that most ref's just seem to let slide. It's irritating, and I've only ever seen French ref's call it up strangely.

On a side note, notice the difference on how McCaw gets to where he is in the maul and how Heaslip gets there? That's another thing that should be pinged imo - McCaw never came through the middle.

leftleg

.ak wrote: »

:cool: Evens Stevens loike!


Joking aside I think both are not gouging in any way, but Locky's one looks worse.

But both started off with the 'head pulling' that most ref's just seem to let slide. It's irritating, and I've only ever seen French ref's call it up strangely.

On a side note, notice the difference on how McCaw gets to where he is in the maul and how Heaslip gets there? That's another thing that should be pinged imo - McCaw never came through the middle.

I said that earlier re McCaw but on further viewing i changed my mind; He does indeed come through the middle; he starts off in the middle and attaches himself to the maul correctly and only then when attached does he worm himself to the side of the maul and into the center; Its irritating to see only because he is so effective and most importantly; he isn't breaking any rules. and anyways that's exactly what Jamie does there; attaches at the back and then worms his way into the side while still attached and pops up in the middle. no complaints from me.

totallegend

People realise that the window for citings has long since closed, right?

Fishooks12

totallegend wrote: »

People realise that the window for citings has long since closed, right?

It closed before the thread even opened I think!

unplayable

thats a gouge for me

Tox56

Whatever about McLaughlin, Heaslip was red carded for what he did and obviously deservedly so. That didn't happen in the BOD case, and no action was taken even with the video footage.

mikedragon32

Oh look. Another thread dragged off topic by a flamewar. If your post has been deleted, consider yourself lucky not to have received a card or ban. Any more talk of the BOD incident and there will be bans.

Cop on!

Otacon

TBH I think this thread should be locked now. No action is going to be taken on it either way so whether or not it was a gouge is irrelevant at this stage, no?

backawaygo onahead

Klunk_NZ wrote: »

McCaw being 'staunch' and not reporting it just like not reporting Rougerie is actually damaging to the sport and encourages this type of behaviour. I know he thinks he is being maucho and not reporting things like these but I completely disagree. If that was a NZ player doing it to an Irish player it would have been cited, sentenced to death and every rugby forum would have 100 post threads. (BOD ruck clearout anyone?)

Completely agree with you, intent is not a consideration, reckless contact is guilty & that was reckless.

As for a player's previous conduct, look what happened to John Afoa for his tackle at TP. Look what happened to Quinnie when teh world and its mother said "Quinnie's not a dirty player" - missed a Lions tour.

Kev was guilty of reckless contact with the eye area.