A life ban must be one penalty for any footballer found guilty of eye-gouging or stomping on an opponent’s head. And add two more penalties with no get-out clauses, and an automatic ripping up of the culprit’s contract.
Draconian? No way.
Two rugby footballers in 2010 – Welshmen Gavin Quinnell playing for Scarlets, and amateur Clarence Harding playing lower grades – have lost their sight after being eye-gouged.
Yet administrators still haven’t taken take the necessary steps to wipe out the dangerous practice.
In 1927, Frenchman Gaston Riviera died after being stomped on. The culprit went free.
In 1978, All Black John Ashworth stomped on Welsh full-back JPR Williams, who left the field, had 30 stitches inserted in his head wound by his doctor father, and resumed.
Those two examples are bad enough. But must a footballer suffer permanent brain damage from being stomped on, or go blind from being sprigged in the eye?
Eye-gouging and stomping are two premeditated acts of violence, unacceptable on the football field, and must be treated as such.
Players are banned for life for striking a referee or umpire. And rightfully so. But that act isn’t nearly as dangerous as gouging or stomping.
Amazingly, there have been a seriously high 26 rugby footballers found guilty of eye-gouging at the elite level since 1992: eight of them during internationals. And the penny still hasn’t dropped with administrators.
Former All Black prop Richard Loe was the first caught 20 years ago, copping 26 weeks for gouging Greg Cooper in the Waikato-Otago game.
Bok lock Bakkies Botha was the first international, when he gouged Wallaby hooker Brendan Cannon in 2003, and was suspended for 8 weeks.
In the latest incident, Rebels lock Adam Byrnes gouged Tom Carter in the Super Rugby clash with the NSW Waratahs on May 2, earning a 10-week holiday. Byrnes is ineligible to play again until May 13.
The additional farce is the disparity of the gouging suspensions, ranging from the all-time high 104 weeks for Richard Nones playing for Colombiers against Pontypridd in 1999, to just 3 weeks for Troy Flavell playing for North Harbour against Wellington in 1997.
Rugby footballers have a long tradition of sticking up for one another.
But when it comes to eye-gouging and stomping, there would be universal support for the maximum penalty.
Your move, administrators.
Sircoolalot
Guest
or French
MattyP
Guest
Tell that to this chap in the UK who just got 6 months in the clink for breaking an opponent's jaw with a punch... http://www.metro.co.uk/news/892370-rugby-player-jailed-for-on-field-punch-that-broke-opponents-jaw The law protects you only for acts that are acceptable within the laws of the game being played and the accordant risks accepted by the players. Go beyond those, and you proceed at your own risk.
capital
Guest
And then we have Rougerie on the showpiece of rugby - the RWC final getting off scot free. I do not think there should be limitations on citings for serious - potentially career ending incidents.
capital
Guest
Brett, David I am not sure what footage is available, but the incident looked pretty innocuous from Fox cameras. If there is stronger footage - all for the harsh penalty, but the act did not look pre meditated or deliberate from what I saw.
capital
Guest
The Carozza incident was bad enough, but of course went without action. It was only when Loe was caught with his fingers in the sockets of a kiwi in the provincial comp that any action was taken. If that is not a double standard ...
Seiran
Roar Guru
They can't ban players for gouging and stomping. There'd be no Bok forwards left to play rugby if they did that.
Hoy
Roar Guru
I was thinking more long term pre-meditation, not the defnition of stomping. I don't think too many people wake up on the day of the game, and think to themselves, "Boy am I gonna stomp someone today". If you call pre-meditation the few seconds prior to stomp, then yes, but not long term pre-meditation, and if it is long term pre-meditation, then those people do need to be rubbed out of the game full stop.
redsnut
Guest
"" There is no offence of eyegouging in the Laws Neither is there one of stomping on the head"" But there is for dangeous tackles.
redsnut
Guest
""And I don’t think stomping is always pre-meditated."" Stomping, and treading on someone are two entirely different things. Stomping is a direct and hard up and down movement, and has to be deliberate. Treading can happen accidentally and is not a direct up and down movement
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Wally of course the more severe the crime the more certain intent needs to be clear. But there are plentiful examples that can given where intent is crystal-clear.
Cattledog
Guest
Correct :)
Wally James
Roar Guru
Iron, disabuse yourself of that idea old, son. People can most certainly be charged for offences on the Rugby paddock and have been for the last 3 decades or so.
Wally James
Roar Guru
Hear Hear
Wally James
Roar Guru
Thats fair enough King. No arguments from me given those facts. But my point remains, because his offence is different to someone who, say, with reckless disregard just brushes the eyes as opposed to someone who intentionally maims.. Its not just the person but also the facts of the offence which need be taken into account I think.
Cattledog
Guest
As someone who sits on a judiciary and also having a son play rugby, I am all for cutting out all forms of thuggery and certainly life bans and bans of 3-5 years are all viable punishments. However, the sentence must fit the crime. There are levels of intent and there are also levels of seriousness. I agree with Brett above regarding the Adam Byrnes incident. I certainly haven't seen the evidence presented to the judiciary, but from the evidence I have seen, I really can't conclude that the actual intent was to gouge the eyes. I see a large amount of video evidence from time to time and it really is quite clear when someone 'intends' to inflict illegal damage to someone. Of course, they will always profess their innocence but generally the evidence is really quite damning. I also think there should be more discussion with clubs, players and officials by those responsible for hearing charges brought about by referees and officials. Education in this area appears to be somewhat lacking. If clubs and players new that you will come before a board (judiciary) and be dealt with according to the laws of the game and the guidelines provided, then perhaps education on these matters may go someway toward reducing foul play in the first place. However, David, whilst I agree with harsh penalties, even life bans, the punishment MUST fit the crime and be assessed on the basis of severity, intent etc.
soapit
Guest
and making the penalty super severe as a blanket rule could see less people actually being charged as the administrators dont want to regularly rub people out for life.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Wally I would slightly part company with you here. Even if a player has a clean record for 13 years, I still think eye-gouging is monstrous personal assault and should have the book thrown at it. It's not much good to say to the blinded victim 'it's ok, your attacker did have a good record before, that's why we're letting him off lightly'.
Wally James
Roar Guru
All compulsory penalties for foul play are flawed in Rugby just as they are in criminal matters. A penalty should be moulded to fit the offence before the judiciary. There is no offence of eyegouging in the Laws. There is an offence of striking or unsportsmanlike conduct. Neither is there one of stomping on the head. The offence is stamping or trampling. There can be offences within these laws which range from the minor to the horrific. Accordingly the penalty, in fairness, shouldn't be the same for all. The people before the judiciary do not have the same history in the game. Someone who has played at the highest level with a clean record over 13 years should not be treated like a thug with 2 previous convictions in two months for vilen conduct. Sure, be hard on folk who deserve it. But not all folk deserve to be treated the same.
Pillock
Roar Rookie
How about an old fashioned tar n' feathers or maybe put the bloke in stocks and have the fans throw rotten fruit at him. Why let the judiciary have all the fun.
kiwidave
Guest
This is on the money i think. Life bans would be excessive any raking of the face should come under scrutiny and bans applied according to the severity.