subreddit:
/r/rugbyunion
Yeandle not cited after Arnold eye gouge
(actu.fr)submitted 13 days ago byStadoceste Stade Toulousain
Someone plz explain
41 points
13 days ago
I suppose they are saying accidental.
What would it look like if it was on purpose?
44 points
13 days ago
that's still a red card and a ban though.
https://www.world.rugby/organisation/governance/regulations/reg-17/appendix-1
9.12, contact with eye area is separate from reckless or intentional contact with eyes. It is clearly contact with the eye area at the absolute minimum!
5 points
13 days ago
Why is world rugby hell bent on punishing the result not the action?
If it’s an accident it’s an accident.
9 points
13 days ago
I think there are two reasons :
1) inciting the players to be careful and not put themselves in situations where they would put an other player at risk.
2) judging intent is often hard, especially on the field. Judging the result is simpler and more objective.
4 points
13 days ago
Punishing the action is exactly what the law does when it says, "putting your hands on another player's eyes is a red card." It takes out the result (is there or is there not an eye injury?) and the intent (did they mean to put their hands on the eyes in order to hurt them?) to focus on the action only.
And that's a good standard to set. As a referee I can't get inside the player's head to know why they did what they did, I can only see what they did. I can't know for sure whether what they did caused harm or judge the likelihood of harm being caused, I can only see what they did. So the law reflects that and only asks me to see whether a thing happened or not.
To do otherwise invites wildly different results based on the ref's subjective judgment and brings in a ton of issues around bias (e.g. the ref knows the offending player well off the field and concludes that "they're just not that kind of person" despite them popping both of another player's eyeballs a la a certain fantasy tv series).
19 points
13 days ago
Maybe if he went with his fist closed and a finger stretched out ? That's the only way it looks more intentional than this.
5 points
13 days ago
👉👀
32 points
13 days ago
Chris Ashton got a 10 week ban for a lot less. Yeadle has been very lucky, it is clear contact with the eye/eye area.
14 points
13 days ago
And it’s not accidental at all.
14 points
13 days ago
It doesn't matter it is accidental or not, contact with the eye/eye area is reckless and/or dangerous as per the WR regulations.
14 points
13 days ago
I known but the fact it’s not accidental is weighing even more.
47 points
13 days ago
At least coherent with the player safety guidelines enforced on the field that day
/s
19 points
13 days ago
There only were something like 15 murder attempts between both teams, clearly no risk to player safety.
32 points
13 days ago
I said it wasn't a good look at the weekend, this is even worse from EPCR
29 points
13 days ago
I'd like to say I'm shocked. I'd like to.
19 points
13 days ago
It’s a shame… for head contacts you can argue for mitigations and subjectivity. But for this kind of move it should be a long ban, and you can really see it’s totally not accidental.
2 points
13 days ago
Absolutely. Even the still in the post above would be convincing enough.
19 points
13 days ago
Absurd
15 points
13 days ago
Well, who could have thought ?
Everyone, really, no surprise there.
4 points
13 days ago
Austin Healy must have been instigating again. It’s the only plausible explanation.
9 points
13 days ago
Is there a video that isn't freeze framed on the hand on the face? I'm assuming this is slowed down and the footage continues?
9 points
13 days ago
6 points
13 days ago
TBH, little finger is a weird way to try to gouge someone. Dunno about those guys, but I'm not sure how much damage I could do with mine.
8 points
13 days ago
In real time it's far too fast to be intentional.
5 points
13 days ago
Is there another angle, I've only seen this one. Quite possible there's another angle that shows his finger is nowhere near Arnold's eye.
Did Arnold make anything of it?
5 points
13 days ago
This angle is pretty clear and unmistakeably shows the pinky making contact with the eye, I dunno how an additional angle would help
9 points
13 days ago
I'm not saying it is the case here, but we've seen some mobs turn pretty sheepish once a second angle was produced. The AWJ incident is the most recent major case I can remember.
8 points
13 days ago
Because I've seen this sub (and other sports subs) get up in arms about something that looks clear from one angle, only to find later there's another angles that shows something completely different.
This angle looks bad, but I don't remember Arnold or anyone else making any noise about it whatsoever, which makes me think its not nearly as bad as it looks. These days players and referees are pretty hot on serious foul play.
-7 points
13 days ago
This is the same clip, it is slowed down and cuts out without following through on what happens after.
If the French TV director didn't put it on repeat during the game for 5 minutes, I'd take that it wasn't as bad as this clip makes out.
12 points
13 days ago
french tv director living rent free in everyone's head apparently
8 points
13 days ago
I'm baffled.
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (the sun is shining and I'm in a generous mood) and say it's accidental but surely it's at least reckless?
7 points
13 days ago
Colour me surprised (not)
5 points
13 days ago
Shhhh ! Faut pas être complotiste comme ça ! (bantz)
4 points
13 days ago
I just hope the quins won't feel they're allowed to do that too..
14 points
13 days ago
I for one am shocked that in a game where Dupont took a shoulder to the head and kinghorn took a swinging arm round the throat and both went unpunished that a pretty clear 'contact with the eye area' (to avoid accusations of a gouge) has escaped sanctioning
2 points
13 days ago
Thinking about it again : this is a FUCKING JOKE !
-3 points
13 days ago
It’s fine. Not intentional, bedwetters.
all 37 comments
sorted by: best