Rebel Byrnes Super Rugby ban over-turned

Marky mark, You are obviously too close to see the wood from the trees. Adam Byrne is a very lucky boy , but maybe not so lucky next time.

depends what one would constitute evidence, justin. the lines in the letter of the law are very murky indeed, and more open to interpretation than fact.

Contact with the face/eye happened during a tackle from behind at full speed. Even in super slow-mo it did not look nasty or intentional. Yes, as eye-gouging is a cynical act - it has to be intentional. I am a Tahs (and Tom Carter) supporter.

You miss understand. That is the video of when they are standing up before they go to the ground. That is inconclusive. The video which cleared him is when they are getting up off the ground which is when Tom says it happened.

he should probably wear eye guards

the video is inconclusive is what the judgement says

Read the judgement. The video evidence clearkly shows it DID NOT Happen when he said it did. What does that tell you. The video is lying?

Drop Kick, No one is suggesting Carter poked himself in the eye. Carter complained in writing that his eye area (not his eye) was attacked as he got up off the ground. It is clear from the judgement that the vidoe evidence was not inconclusive. It clearly exonerated Byrnes of such allegation. What the Judicial Officer then did was to go to the INCONCLUSIVE video of before they fell to the ground and find that Byrnes got Carter in a reckless headlock. The Appeal committee has found there was no headlock. No headlock, no reckless contact. It is obvious Carter had a small scratch from an unintentional attempt by Byrnes to grab hold of Carter. Carter tried to milk it and went overboard. Should never have wrongly accused him of eye gouging. Did not think before op-ening his big mouth.

Correct Cattledog. It's just Carters form to try and pin that sort of thing on Byrnes. Too smart by half is Carter. Can't wait until the return match if there is one. Carter better have his running boots on

A bit of perspective is needed here. Tom Carter is a Waratahs legend who plays hard, but to the rules of the game and never goes over the line. He is an honest gentleman, and if he said he got eye gouged then I believe him.

Yes the issue is intent. Eye gouging is one of the most serious charges there is. If intent isn't a determining factor what is? Sorry "Drop Kick" don't understand your point. These citings are akin to criminal charges where intent is the be all and end all. James thanks for your comments. Check his record I think you'll find that it is clean. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I think if you are going to make serious allegations like your point 2 you need to be able to back it up with something called evidence. It's funny how there have been no apologies to date from any of the contributors who attacked Adam after the citing. Again I live in hope.

It's a beat up. Carter's mates should tell him to HTFU!

You obviously haven't played rugby, Brendon. Unfortunately, in the real world it's NOT as simple as that.

James - What Byrnes record for being a dirty player? He maybe niggly but I thought his record was clean. They had a physical exchange and Byrnes hands/arms were around Carters head. Again where is the eye gouge evidence though? This is hardly Richard Low on Matt Cooper like some of you are making out...

I dont see how you can spear tackle someone by accident? DK - I think you need to accept that there will be times in rugby where people have scratches and marks. It does not prove anything in regards to intentional eye gouging. Merely that the has been some contact over someone face. I have had plenty of scratch marks in my days, doesnt mean any one tried to gouge me. A hand across the face is VERY different to someone trying to poke your eyes out. DO you want anyone who makes contact with an opponents face to be rubbed out for 10 weeks? If you do then there will be a lot of players on the sidelines.

1. Byrnes is a dirty player. 2. Byrnes deliberately put his hand on Carter's face. 3. Carter showed the ref damage to his eye. 4. The video evidence in the end proved inconclusive. I'd say all up, Adam Byrnes is a very lucky boy.

You need evidence to convict, there was none. Simple as that.

Oh so the issue is intent is it. So it is alright to recklessly make contact with the face if you didn' t mean it. It's alright to spear tackle someone into oblivion if it was accidental.

If it was a simple as that then there would be no one left playing the game. Have a look at how many times during a game, a ruck, a maul or during a tackle contact is made with players eye area, faces and eyes. Do they all deserve to be suspended for 12 weeks? These things happen in a split second. The issue is intent. In this case there was no digging of fingers in. Have a look at what happened to Ritche McCaw in the RWC final where he was eye gouged. There has never been more camera angles on the field then there is today. If there was clear cut evidence that Byrnes did it then it would have been picked up. But there wasn't. End of story.

scratches all over? yes but its different in the face!!!! you notice when someone feels around for a soft area on your face and digs fingers in. Camera angles have gotten players off all the time in the past. There is no way that in any game you have an opportunity to touch someones face with your fingers without knowing what you are doing, simple as that