Cueto set for World Cup after 9-week ban

Funk. Your ‘ivory tower’ reference makes no sense. But what makes even less sense is your comment ‘…If you really think that there is anything mid-range about contact to the eyes…’ You really haven’t been paying attention have you? There was no contact with the eyes. Get it now? The rest of the stuff about judiciary favouritism and other players, as interesting as it is, has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. I’ll take your ‘fool’ charge on advisement. Thanks for that.

PubLunch, there was intention to make contact with the face, you’re absolutely right, and he shouldn’t have done it, absolutely right again. Which is exactly what he admitted to and for which he received (and this is the important bit) exactly the appropriate censure. There is no problem with precedent because the findings are largely consistent with similar cases. Once again, contrary to similar recent instances of contact with players eyes (and players receiving longer bans), in Cueto’s case there simply is no video evidence of sustained contact with the eyes, or indeed any contact at all, there was no treatment or evidence of eye injury and the player on the receiving end testified he felt no contact with his eyes at all. What more do you want? The precedent’s sound.

To be fair it's not exactly a 'lynch mob' against Cueto. It's a call for consistency. The fact is, he went at the face in a claw like manner. There was intention... it may not have been to gouge the eyes but he shouldn't have gone for the face at all. No one doubts Cueto's exemplary record it's still a massive mistake in the most sensitive part of the game. He seems genuinely remorseful and I don't think he would have been complaining if he got 18 weeks. The problem is now we have a precedent. This footage is probably going to be used to give worse offenders more lenient terms. Perhaps not though. Hopefully not.

It must be nice up on that Ivory tower of yours Chris T, if ther is intention to make contact with the eyes, the full extent of law should be issued. If you really think that there is anything mid-range about contact to the eyes ask Clarence Harding and Gavin Quinnell, what they think. As mentioned by Ironawe this needs to be dealt with harshly to get it out of the game completely. And, whilst I'm at it, if you believe that there is no favourtism in the judiciary (you called it "conspiracy of the judiciary") then you are a fool, the only consistency from the judiciary is it's inconsistency. Bakkies Botha got 9 weeks for a headbut on the back of Cowan's head, Mealamu does the same thing and gets 2 weeks?????

Yep, another eager member of the lynch mob. See responses above.

Mate, you're being a bit hysterical. You're claiming a conspiracy of the judiciary (i take it you were present at the hearing and/or have the full report and findings available) because his mid range offense is reduced by mitigation and his exemplary record - but without the reduction he still goes to the RWC and plays in some warm up games. You then claim gouging should 'not be tolerated' (and you're right) but where's your evidence of gouging? The video shows contact with the face but no clear and sustained fingers in the eyes as with say the Burger or Atoub video. The 'victim' Dale is not treated for an eye injury and claims he felt no contact with his eyes except a 'push' to his face generally - which again is at odds with the accounts of the victims of the previously mentioned. You point to the fact that not contesting the charge 'is evidence enough' for you but evidence of what exactly? Making contact with the face in a reckless manner only my friend. I hope no one is unfortunate enough to have you serve on their jury. To be honest, in the middle of a fight, when you're standing over a kneeling opponent who is wide open to a full shot, un furling the fist and pushing your hand into the face instead could be argued more an act of restraint. Or maybe he suddenly remembered he was a winger and the guy he was about to lamp was a prop?

Really? Why, exactly?

Here is the incident if you haven't already seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QYJII6Fh9s It looks to me that he intentionally went for the eyes. I don't know what a mid level or high level gouge is, but I don't think there should be a distinction. Gouging is gouging, and should have everything done to cut it from the game.

I totally agree Publunch. It makes a joke of the judiciary. England must think he is really important to their needs. He should have received the full ban, eye gouging should not be tolerated on the rugby pitch. The excuse that it was not as severe is ludicrous how can you tell, did he just visit the manicurist before the match so his nails were short so he wouldn't inflict too much pain when he dragged them across the players eyes. The mere fact that he used his hand in a claw like motion across another players eyes is reason to ban him for the full period. The intent was there and also the fact that he didn't contest the charge says a lot. Burger and the French half back would be sitting in the homes shaking their heads. It obviously sends a message its OK for some and not others.

I can't help but imagine that if he was South African or French he would have received the full ban.