Eye gouging at Club level

[beckett50]

Saw this today, and am quite horrified that it has reached our levels.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8489723.stm

It doesn't say whether the referee saw the incident. One would suspect as the culprit is unknown that he didn't.

 

[tim White]

Similar incident in Cumbria at the start of the season :sad:

 

[chopper15]

We're coming to a 'for life' ban . . . the sooner the better. Blindness is for life, so why not?

 

[PaulDG]

We're coming to a 'for life' ban . . . the sooner the better. Blindness is for life, so why not?

But this is insane.

It's not about governing the rules of a sport - this is assault causing Grievous Bodily Harm.

Who the h*ll thinks this has a place in rugby?

Life ban? My bottom. Lock him up (assuming the police can find out who it is) and throw the key away.

 

[chopper15]

But this is insane.
Life ban? My bottom. Lock him up (assuming the police can find out who it is) and throw the key away.

Imprisonment, of course, can follow, Paul.:clap:

 

[Dixie]

I fear it's not new. I had people rummaging around my eye sockets at Taunton in the early 1980's. They were deeply affronted that a winger was to be found in a ruck; the sanction for this offence was a finger in the mouth pulling the cheek back towards the ear, and another finger in the eye while the flanker concerned explained the more dire consequences of future offences - mainly having to do with restricted procreation possibilities.

 

[dave_clark]

good old days, hey Dixie

 

[Emmet Murphy]

Why should there be a life ban at grassroots level for something that some elite referees (by that I mean Bryce Lawrence) regard as a yellow card offence in an international?

 

[dave_clark]

because it's a vile act that has no space in civilised society.

accidental contact is one thing, a concerted effort to damage the eye is another.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I fear it's not new. I had people rummaging around my eye sockets at Taunton in the early 1980's. They were deeply affronted that a winger was to be found in a ruck; the sanction for this offence was a finger in the mouth pulling the cheek back towards the ear, and another finger in the eye while the flanker concerned explained the more dire consequences of future offences - mainly having to do with restricted procreation possibilities.

Like Dixie I experienced the mouth pull and testicular squeeze warning a number of times in the 80s, and once had a finger in the eye socket (somewhere west of Plymouth) from a flanker that got fed up being made a bit silly by a will o'the wisp scrum half

It is cowardly, and totally against the ethos and culture of rugby - those who do it at whatever level, should be banned for lengthy periods, and be subject to police action if the evidence is strong enough.

 

[Bryan]

the sanction for this offence was a finger in the mouth pulling the cheek back towards the ear...

In Dickie's* personal film collection, this is what's known as a "Fish Hook".

Like Dixie I experienced the mouth pull and testicular squeeze warning a number of times in the 80s

Ahh yes, Volume II of Dickie's collection - Fish Hook with added reach-around. You have to pay good money to get that these days.

Seriously, this is rediculous. I'm going to make the assumption that NONE of these actions are deliberately coached, so it begs the question why players take that sort of action in a game. There's pulling opponents back, holding them down a little longer than allowed, but this is a stretch!

*Dickie, I'm sorry if I'm now stereotyping you as the cheeky Australian with the love for filth, I'm not being serious, honest!

 

[Emmet Murphy]

because it's a vile act that has no space in civilised society.

accidental contact is one thing, a concerted effort to damage the eye is another.

Whenever a player has been caught doing it, it's always an accident. Has any player ever admitted to doing it deliberately? These 'accidents' will only stop when it is dealt with firmly at all levels of the game. We've recently seen a relatively high-profile player get a lengthy ban which is a start. But it is just that - a start.

 

[menace]

*Dickie, I'm sorry if I'm now stereotyping you as the cheeky Australian with the love for filth, I'm not being serious, honest!

why?..don't apologise I think it's pretty much true. I think that's why Mr R Burns moved down under anyway?:biggrin:

 

[Dickie E]

*Dickie, I'm sorry if I'm now stereotyping you as the cheeky Australian with the love for filth, I'm not being serious, honest!

I resemble that accusation

 

[Dickie E]

mainly having to do with restricted procreation possibilities.

maybe more to do with taste in gay icons :wink: