What happened this week could be a catalyst for change in the NRL.
I am not talking about the news around CTE findings in two former players’ brains, which deserves its own in-depth analysis.
I am referring to the George Burgess eye gouge on Robbie Farah in Thursday’s match.
It’s hard to rate how high up on the spectrum of dirty play eye-gouging rates, as the NRL is no stranger to dirty play. Finger up the bum, cannonball tackles, crusher tackles, king hits and the one act that is creeping back into the game with too much frequency, the deliberate late hit.
Of those mentioned, eye-gouging stands apart when it comes to the unanimous cringe it receives from stakeholders.
However, the NRL has been found wanting time and again in how it punishes the eye gouge, to the point that it has provided no deterrent to offenders like Burgess.
Rabbitohs forward George Burgess must cop a lengthy suspension for his second eye-gouging incident in as many years. (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
Past eye gouge punishments have included a five-match ban for Canberra’s Hudson Young in an incident in Round 12, a four-match ban for Burgess again in a Test match at the end of 2018, and two fines for Josh McGuire.
McGuire’s fines were justified in the first case by his first victim Cameron Munster declining to make an official complaint despite overwhelming video evidence, and the second incident was adjudicated to be a facial.
The inconsistencies are an issue in itself and should be corrected by the NRL.
The first step is to properly define an eye gouge in the first place, and that should be to outline the act as any contact with the eye. Facials that make incidental contact with the eye, too bad so sad – it’s an unnecessary part of the game.
The second step is the appropriate suspension. Phil Gould said in commentary referring to McGuire’s ‘facial’ on Dylan Walker: “If they’ve charged and found him guilty of eye-gouging, but fined? Please. Eight weeks.”
Gould is absolutely on the mark. Eight weeks minimum for any contact incidental or not with the eye.
Regardless of Munster’s refusal to complain officially, McGuire should have been given an eight-week holiday, and another eight weeks for the Walker incident. How else does the NRL expect the behaviour to be stamped out?
On Thursday, Burgess committed an act in plain sight of TV cameras. Evidence is not a problem in this case. This is Burgess’s second instance in as many years. It’s got to be a 12-week minimum sentence. It’s time the NRL drew a line in the sand and put in place the system to eradicate it from the game.
If a complaint is officially made by a player on the field or is suspected by the referee, the referee should refer it to the bunker for the correct adjudication. Allow play to continue, but if the bunker judges the incident to in fact be an eye gouge, stop play momentarily and issue the send-off, which Burgess should have received.
The NRL could use Thursday’s incident to send a message to players and clubs alike on how the game should be played.
Get rid of the eye gouge and the facial in one fell swoop.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Couldn't agree more,Insider. Referees are trying to manage games and not referee them and this is the outcome. Burgess should have been sent off. McGuire should also have been given a good suspension regardless of whether Munster complained or not. Another example of "managing the game" was last night's game. The Raiders player should have been sent off for a swinging arm to the face of the Parra player.
Paul
Roar Guru
I've written to the NRL a few times TB and they've always gotten back to me - eventually. I had a terrific interchange with one of your old players, Andrew Ryan, about player support when injured, so I'll try them again over the issue about suspensions and see what they say. Happy to forward a response through this forum when I get an answer
The Barry
Roar Guru
Paul - the question of not knowing the basis for suspensions is a good one. I wonder if it doesn’t have something to do with the grading points system that doesn’t allow the judiciary to dish out an 18 weeks suspension to send a message as the judiciary could back in the day. I like your idea. Eye gouging just shouldn’t be tolerated in the slightest. As you say, it’s not like a tackle that’s slid up or something.
Isaac Buatava
Roar Pro
Not a bad idea that special class of penalty. I like it! Distinguishes those infringements that are totally avoidable and unnecessary.
Tom
Guest
Especially in the case of Munster who is a rep team mate of McGuire and understandably reluctant to make a complaint. Andrew Webster was on the mark when he said if you ban the buff you also need to ban the niggle. Having Chief or Spud ready to put a few in your chin was a powerful disincentive to this sort of behaviour.
Hard Yards
Roar Rookie
Basically he needs to be shown the door.
Paul
Roar Guru
the problem as outsiders looking in, is not knowing on what basis they made these various decisions Isaac. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree this type of thing has NO part in our game, but if the decision makers had valid reasons for NOT imposing harsher penalties, fair enough. Right this minute in time, I can't think what they are. Maybe there needs to be a special class of penalty for infringements that have nothing what so ever to do with the game. For example, high tackles are still a tackle, so should be treated one way. Eye gouging, biting, punching, kicking, tripping, spitting, etc are in no way part of the game and players found guilty should incur extra penalties, because in their actions, they stopped playing Rugby League. Really bad high tackles, etc can still be heavily penalized, but this other class of action simply should not be there - end of story, so first offence 6 months, 2nd offence 12 months, 3rd offence 3 years, etc.
Isaac Buatava
Roar Pro
Hi Paul, but the sentences have reduced. 5 weeks for hudson young at least 3 weeks too short. And the Munster incident was plain ridiculous in how they justified not sanctioning McGuire more severely.
Isaac Buatava
Roar Pro
Sorry RAF, didn't get that totally first time. Your absolutely right. Just like McKinnon getting seriously injured proved to be catalyst for closer policing of the wrestle will an eye getting ripped out of its socket before that occurs with facials etc. Hope not.
RAF
Guest
I meant in a physical sense. A pointer up the date on a football field isn't likely to maim someone, whereas a finger nail across the pupil is extremely dangerous.
Isaac Buatava
Roar Pro
Rugby mate. They are a little more proactive. One season i played in the local comp, the refs put out notice a punch will automatically result in 12 weeks. There weren't many fights brawls that year.
Isaac Buatava
Roar Pro
And the crackdown has worked! What are the NRL waiting for. Gives me the s@#ts.
Isaac Buatava
Roar Pro
Puzzling Dutski, why did munster have to officially complain when it was there in plain sight. Garbage in garbage out.
Isaac Buatava
Roar Pro
Agree, happens in other sports too. The damien oliver suspension which ended conviniently before the spring carnival.
Isaac Buatava
Roar Pro
RAF, the finger up the bum was sexual assault. If it happened today i wouldn't be surprised if the police got involved.
Isaac Buatava
Roar Pro
Hi Barry, obvious to some. We'll see what happens to burgess.
Isaac Buatava
Roar Pro
Hi Nico, makes you wonder whats happened.
Isaac Buatava
Roar Pro
Agree Derek, i was going to compare the punishments to that in rugby as they are alot more severe, justifiably. But alot of league people tend to get defensive when using rugby as a measuring stick.
Paul
Roar Guru
"However, the NRL has been found wanting time and again in how it punishes the eye gouge, to the point that it has provided no deterrent to offenders like Burgess." I think you are being way too harsh on the NRL, Isaac. As others have pointed out, there have been seriously lengthy suspensions handed out over the years, but you'll still find grubs who think the Law doesn't apply to them. Burgess knows what he did was wrong as he'd already got 4 games for the same sort of offence only a few years ago. I totally agree Burgess needs to get a strong message and IMO should be banned from playing League anywhere for 12 months. He's not a first offender, he knew what he was doing but he still went ahead regardless. As for the NRL, this is part of the game that needs to be stamped out, but again, each case needs to be judged on it's merits. For sure, ANY incident viewed as eye gouging ( or biting for that matter) should be referred for further assessment, regardless what the receiving player thinks and no fines, only suspensions for players found guilty.
Steve
Guest
I'm positive one of Mark Gasniers team mates in France got 82 weeks for something very similar. It's disgraceful