Our code outlaws foul play. As a heavy contact sport, rugby cannot easily define foul play.
Mere danger is not an organising principle: a completely legal tackle can knock a ball-carrier out and even the most correct of scrums could end with a maimed prop.
Rugby is risky. Tackling Julian Savea is dangerous: most opposing wings behave as if bringing him down is prohibited.
Foul play in rugby is defined in World Rugby Law 10. The broad preamble describes foul play as ‘anything a player does within the playing enclosure that is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game.’
Some foul play is described expressly: tripping, for example. Law 10.4 lists other ‘dangerous’ foul play explicitly: kicking a player or punching or striking (with fist, arm, elbow, shoulder, head, or knee), stamping, trampling, and the most contentious one, ‘dangerous tackling.’
Biting is so far beyond the rugby pale that perhaps it needs no definition. Law 10.4 (m) does, however, provide a catch-all prohibition on anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship.
Biting a player is clearly against the spirit of the game. We don’t have assistant biting coaches, biting is not a core skill, and very few parents would allow their kids to play a biting-friendly sport. In every sane household, the kids are not permitted to bite one another.
Of course, if you see a law about something, you can guarantee that thing is being done. That’s why there has to be a law. Many actions that occur on a rugby pitch would be illegal off it. For instance, if you tackle a man in a bar, you might end up in the dock.
Biting another person without their consent is criminal in virtually every jurisdiction. Unlike a punch, a bite has a high risk of detaching a part of the victim’s body. It is also extremely creepy.
What does a rugby biter do with the severed part? Did Mike Tyson swallow Evander Holyfield’s ear cartilage? Or just spit it out? Do we reattach it?
These are questions – regardless of the answers – that illustrate the depraved nature of biting a fellow sportsman, even if we grant the biter the concession that he was in the ‘heat of battle.’
Yet from time to time, rugby players have lost the plot and bitten an opponent. I have found no recorded instance of a player biting his teammate.
I have found no record of a rugby player biting an opponent again, after being found guilty of a prior bite, except for Leonardo Senatore of the Jaguares and Pumas.
He is the first rugby union player I have been able to look up who has been found guilty of biting on two separate occasions. In Senatore’s case, his two victims were both South African forwards who had cleaned him out at a ruck, and had their arms around his neck.
Football has a three-time biter: Luis Suarez of Uruguay. Suarez (who makes about 20 times as much money as Senatore) bit an Italian defender in 2014, after biting a Chelsea defender in 2013, and a PSV player in 2010. In a game that has no provocative rucks or the surreptitious spaces of a scrum, it is astounding that Suarez did not receive a lifetime ban.
I imagine every defender thinks for an instant about Suarez’s incisors when locked in a one-on-one tussle with the Uruguayan star.
But rugby has typically been able to stop a biter from the second bite. Sometimes the team management of the biter is an important part of that process.
For instance, in a close 1994 Test at Eden Park, Springbok prop Johan le Roux bit All Black hooker Sean Fitzpatrick’s ear, and although the Irish referee did not see the event and therefore did not penalise le Roux, the Bok coaching staff found him guilty and sent him home; he never played for his country again, even after his 18-month ban ended.
Le Roux himself was unrepentant, famously proclaiming he should have torn all of Fitzy’s ear off so he could have ‘returned to South Africa with the guy’s ear.’
It is not clear how Argentina’s rugby chiefs see Senatore’s actions, nor is it clear how Senatore himself views biting. In both of his biting incidents, he defended his actions; and no officials publicly condemned him.
Perhaps all unions in the world of rugby should make it clearer that a second bite triggers a lifetime ban, and a first bite should cost a player at least a year of rugby. Ridding oneself of the impulse to bite ears, fingers, hands, and arms is probably not simple; a period of reflection would help.
If I were a national coach, with the honour that a Test cap bestows in my hands, I would decline to select a biter. Hell, I might not even allow Dean Greyling to play for the ‘Boks, after his out-of-control attack on Richie McCaw.
But I definitely wouldn’t want a biter on my team.
England had a prop, Kevin Yates, who bit a club opponent, necessitating 25 stitches. The RFU did allow him to play for his country again, but only after ten years in the wilderness (well, actually, he played in Wellington, New Zealand for a while).
Maybe the location of Senatore’s two bites are the real reason the SANZAAR judicial committee went easy on him. Biting an arm cannot easily maim a person; especially Etzebeth’s arm, which resembles most grown men’s thighs in size.
How else can we understand the oddly lenient ruling by SANZAAR on Senatore that removed four weeks because of ‘mitigating factors, including the player’s good character, his playing and disciplinary record.’
Every other convicted rugby biter has never repeated the crime as far as I know. Only Senatore is a repeat offender.
Is this latest punishment truly a powerful condemnation from the judiciary? Senatore will return for The Rugby Championship, where he will probably face Etzebeth again. Why should Etzebeth have to worry about being bitten again if he misjudges a ruck clean?
Being bitten probably is not that easy to forget. In 2008, a Trentham RFC player, Michael Bezus, was bitten by a St. Edwards Old Boys opponent, suffering a partial amputation of the right index finger. The biter was suspended for 80 weeks; Bezus has ‘lost enthusiasm for the game.’
Some biters have been jailed. Welsh club flank Gareth Jones (no relation to the author) bit off an opponent’s ear lobe in 2008; a Cardiff judge described the attack as ‘barbaric’ as he sentenced Jones to a year in prison.
A Brackenfell player in the Western Cape of South Africa had a ‘moment of madness’ in 2009 after he was ‘handled roughly’ at a ruck by an opponent; uncommonly, he was red carded in the match (most biters escape in-game penalty) and prosecuted for assault.
Senatore may consider his bites justified. Daniel did take Senatore to ground and had his arm around Senatore’s chest and neck at the bottom of a ruck. (Senatore also copped a knee from a fellow teammate to his head). Etzebeth is no cupcake; if he has you in a headlock, I suppose you will contemplate your mortality.
But rucks will be rough as long as rugby is played. Even the UFC has strict rules about biting. Rugby should never have serial biters standing in line for a national anthem, privileged to play another nation’s best.
Unions should have more respect for each other than to allow a player who cannot or will not keep his teeth out of opponents’ arms to play against other Test teams.
If Senatore bites Etzebeth again this year, can we expect just an eleven-week ban?
Why wouldn’t the ‘Boks target Senatore; and who could blame them?
Why is Etzebeth’s body so much less worthy of protection than Fitzpatrick’s?
If rugby wants to grow – as it must – is this the kind of story we can afford?
Bakkies
Guest
As far as I know Shop is an Argie too
Rugby Tragic
Roar Rookie
I cannot understand why people have gotten so emotional about this. I think we all accept that biting is a hideous act of foul play ... it is a no... no and should be punished accordingly. Now if it is as hideous as many believe it to be and the administrators believe it to be then it should be rubbed out of the game. The penalty as a result should be very heavy and consistent for a 1st time offence and multiplied by a factor of say 10 x (open to debate by administrators not the writer). For example if the base punishment for first offence was say 8 weeks, then a second offence would be 80 weeks (by the factor that should be administered). Why are people trying to compare it with other acts of foul play. Other acts of foul play have their own penalties Why are people trying to defend it. Ignore the name of the perpetrator in this instance, or the country he plays for, I have no currency in this 'debate' but players of our game will understand in advance what they are risking. I read many articles on the Roar and I read comments of many 'roarers' but with this article, Nobrain and Carlos seem to have taken this personally. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that should be respected rather than attacked.
Nobrain
Guest
Pointing fingers? You are the one doing it.
RobC
Roar Guru
nobrain. Yes, it is you and Carlos. And one or two more here The Beale saga was 1000s of articles over a span of weeks. This will be over in a few days. No comparison So what if it was a reaction to something else? Many offences are. Makes no difference. Stop being defensive You are diluting and diverting the main message. Stop pointing fingers.
Nobrain
Guest
RobC, to tell you the true we are only two Argentines that constantly subscribe in this page so we are minority and I am sure that if they were more countrymen commenting we could get to a tie. Both, Carlos and I bebleive that somthing has to be done abou it. At least me and a couple other non argy commentators also eleive that Senatores biting is do to a reaction to faul play and the antagoniser should dance to the music as well. In both ocations Senatare was being chooked by the alleged victim. One of the victims at least does not strikes as a monk and unlike Senatore he i allways provoking and following the lessons of his mentor Bakkies Botha. I have not seen the fuzz that this issue brought to this page since the Beale affair with lady PR of the Warratahs. In that occation I found my self so bored about the whole thing that I left the Roar for almost a year. i do not wish that to happen again. Let it go, none who has played rugby at a certain level can say that never seen this type of actions and worse at some point , some of them has told stories in this same page. Rugby players are humans and sometimes they make mistakes, If you have followed Senatore carreer since he was a kid you will know that he is not the type of player that enters to the field to cause trouble. Do not prsent the case in way that make Senatore look like Hannibal Lecter pls.
RobC
Roar Guru
Jordy. Cousin of Kieren Ried / Reed / Reid / Read
RobC
Roar Guru
RobC
Roar Guru
nobrain, Is this is a SA vs ARG thing?
RobC
Roar Guru
Carlos, this is the article about the SA slapping that you mentioned. http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/07/22/the-low-five-slap-a-nasty-trick-in-south-africa/. SA fans response: - yup. agree. thank you for the article. - No arguments, pointing fingers of the author's country of origin or their team
RobC
Roar Guru
omg. Can people stop complaining like little children? Harry made a strong and fair argument. Everyone who is not Argentian agrees. So why is it ONLY the ARG supporters are putting up a stink? Dont kill the messenger: - Senatore and the UAR are the ones who should be thanking their lucky stars. - And their local fans should be unanimous with Harry and every other NORMAL Rugby supporter. - Tell off Senatore. - Tell off UAR for defending him - Tell off SANZAR for a light sentence. - And a serious warning to the other biters, no matter where they come from. What. Do people think this is some kind of vendetta or victimisation of ARG? Stop it. Accept it. Move on.
Brisneyland Local
Guest
Unlike rugby Leagues' "Bring Back the Biff" We should have a Union "Bring Back the Turkey Slap" Hilarious!
grapeseed
Guest
If someone hits you in the groin, you should be allowed to turkey slap them in retaliation.
Jcr
Guest
Richard "poke eye" Loe.
Charl
Guest
No worries Paul - I am one of those medical experts. But if you don't want to know the facts, that's your choice. My original statement, which I stand by, says: " human teeth are some of the dirtiest things on earth, and can cause serious infection and death. " Unfortunately for the victim the Hep C or B once in your blood, will not be washed out by disinfectants. But, as said, believe what you will.
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
rugby nous...
Paul
Guest
Charl, there is a team of medical professional pouring over these players at any hint of injury and right in their kit pack I am sure there are any number of disinfectants and options to clean open wounds. That 10-15% infection rate I bet does not relate to treated bites. Not saying bites aren't horrible and dirty, just think you are over blowing it a little.
Charl
Guest
Ok, you don't need to believe me, and you can minimise and deny if you want to, but these are the facts: "Regardless of the mechanism and anatomic location of the bite wound, the composition of the bacterial inoculum is the same. Cultures of human bite wounds are commonly polymicrobial in nature, and aerobes and anaerobes are represented almost equally. Beta-lactamase production occurs frequently. Commonly isolated aerobes include Eikenella corrodens and Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Corynebacterium species. Staphylococcus aureus is isolated in up to 30% of infected human bite wounds and is associated with some of the most severe infections. E corrodens is a slow-growing, facultative, anaerobic, gram-negative bacillus. It is frequently associated with chronic infection and abscess formation. This pathogen is isolated in 30% of human bite wounds. Other commonly isolated anaerobes include Bacteroides, Fusobacteria, Prevotella, and Peptostreptococcus species. Approximately 10%-15% of human bite wounds become infected owing to multiple factors. The bacterial inoculum of human bite wounds contains as many as 100 million organisms per milliliter and is made up of as many as 190 different species. Many of these are anaerobes that flourish in the low redox environment of tartar that lies between human teeth or in areas of gingivitis. Most injuries due to human bites involve the hands. Hand wounds, regardless of the etiology, have a higher rate of infection than do those in other a locations. (See Pathophysiology and Etiology.) In addition to the acute risk of localized infection, human bites pose the potential for the transmission of systemic infections, which can be life threatening. Hepatitis B transmission via human bites is well documented. In approximately 75% of patients with hepatitis B, the antigen is detectable in their saliva, and it is approximately 100 times more infectious than HIV. Less likely is the transmission of HIV, although several cases in the literature suggest this as a mode of transmission.[3, 4] HIV is found in the saliva of affected patients, although at lower levels than in the blood. In addition, salivary inhibitors render the virus noninfective in most cases. As a result, the risk of transmission of HIV via human bites is exceedingly low.[5]
Harry Jones
Expert
I'm fine with Creevy hanging in Joburg. OK with the rough stuff. He will enjoy the curry. Play on.
Digby
Roar Guru
Goodness no! No beans! You will bite off more than you can chew there!
Digby
Roar Guru
You still have to chew many vegetables. Banning meat would make them worse, not better! ;)