Gouging.

[Andy P]

My son played 2's at the weekend. A fellow Snr Colt said he was gouged. They brought this to the refs attention. He said he didn't see anything and took no further action.

Speaking to a ref on the Sunday during his Snr Colts match who said the ref should have spoken to the opposition and reported the alleged incident.

What is the appropriate management?

 

[Mike Selig]

The ref can take no direct action if he hasn't seen it. By this I mean he can't penalise or give out the appropriate card (presumably red) based on hearsay or even evidence of gouging. Some refs (inc myself) would probably talk to the opposition captain about the allegation given its serious nature (along the lines of: "captain, one of their players is complaining about deliberate contact to the eye area, please be aware that should I see anything ressembling those actions the consequences will be severe"). If there is genuine evidence of the gouge (marks around the eye area) the chat would probably be more severe.

If the club has seen the offence and/or culprit they can of course report it. I don't think the ref can if he hasn't seen it (although if asked at the hearing he should of course say he was made aware of the allegation immediately).

 

[Dixie]

It does no harm to have a word with the oppo, and may do some good. For that reason, I'd see it as good practice. However, a line has to be drawn. If I had £1 for every time I'd been asked to watch for this, or watch for that, I'd only need another £1m to live in ST's postcode!

 

[oldman]

I would suggest speaking to both captains and saying if I see it I will take appropriate action. Its like biting could be done by a team mate. Let everyone know its at the top of your agenda and you will take appropriate action

 

[Mike Selig]

It does no harm to have a word with the oppo, and may do some good. For that reason, I'd see it as good practice. However, a line has to be drawn. If I had £1 for every time I'd been asked to watch for this, or watch for that, I'd only need another £1m to live in ST's postcode!

Obviously a line has to be drawn, but I think acts as serious as gouging (and biting) falls well on one side. If I had £1 for every time I'd been informed of alleged gouging or biting I'd have... £2. I think players generally accept that these acts are "below the belt"?

 

[ChrisR]

Gouging is about the worst offence a player can commit. Biting, raking, even punching will hurt, even injure someone but it won't maim them. Gouging can maim, that is cause a disability that a person has to live with the rest of their lives. Does that piss me off. You betcha!

So if a player came to me as a referee and had a serious claim of gouging I hope I'd act as follows:

Didn't see it? Can't penalize or card!

But you can address the ops to ask what kind of effing moron would commit such an act in a game???

Hopefully, they'll get the message.

 

[Dickie E]

What would you do if you saw a player with hand on opponent's face (but didn't see a gouge) and then saw scratch marks around the opponent's eyes? Would that be enough circumstantial evidence to convict?

 

[GeorgeR]

What would you do if you saw a player with hand on opponent's face (but didn't see a gouge) and then saw scratch marks around the opponent's eyes? Would that be enough circumstantial evidence to convict?

My 17YO son had a particularly fierce and niggly match last week against a major public school and came away with scratch marks to both sides of his face close to his eyes. Being the concerned parent the obvious question was whether there were attempts at gouging. He remembered getting the scratches but wasn't aware of any eye contact, but that the opposition did scratch his face. Its a very fine line, but if I was refereeing that match and saw a player with those scratches with or without intent like that, it would result in a very serious word with both sides and a much closer look at the breakdown.

 

[Taff]

.... a line has to be drawn. If I had £1 for every time I'd been asked to watch for this, or watch for that, I'd only need another £1m to live in ST's postcode!

Exactly. Gouging seems to be the allegation of choice these days, especially with kids rugby. I sometimes wonder whether some of the boys even know what "gouging" actually means. I reckon there's at least 1 allegation a match - it's either that and / or biting. I must admit I've never seen either.

My 17YO son had a particularly fierce and niggly match last week against a major public school and came away with scratch marks to both sides of his face close to his eyes.

Could it possibly have just been a stud mark? I reckon more scratches are caused by boots than opponents, but in a "fierce and niggly match" however and with the adrenalin flowing you just don't notice it at the time.

 

[GeorgeR]

Could it possibly have just been a stud mark? I reckon more scratches are caused by boots than opponents, but in a "fierce and niggly match" however and with the adrenalin flowing you just don't notice it at the time.

In this case that wasn't his impression, but equally he said there was no emphasis on deliberately hurting but he got scratched. I think the point is more that you are aware of 'indicators' as a referee and regardless of intent if I saw similar scratches or marks on a player, suitable warnings are , in my opinion, a very necessary reminder to the players that you are watching them.

 

[OB..]

What would you do if you saw a player with hand on opponent's face (but didn't see a gouge) and then saw scratch marks around the opponent's eyes? Would that be enough circumstantial evidence to convict?

IRB Regulation 17 Appendix 1 lists "Contact with Eyes or the Eye Area" as an offence under Law 10.4 (m). Whether it was actually gouging or not would go to the severity of the offence.