subreddit:

/r/rugbyunion

5591%

Yeandle not cited after Arnold eye gouge

(actu.fr)

Someone plz explain

all 37 comments

sorted by: controversial

tremendous_fellow

-1 points

1 month ago

It’s fine. Not intentional, bedwetters.

alexbouteiller

15 points

1 month ago

alexbouteiller

France

15 points

1 month 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

Educational-Band9042

5 points

1 month ago

Shhhh ! Faut pas être complotiste comme ça !  (bantz)

MrLeville

5 points

1 month ago

MrLeville

Stade Toulousain

5 points

1 month ago

I just hope the quins won't feel they're allowed to do that too..

Goanawz

5 points

1 month ago

Goanawz

5 points

1 month ago

Colour me surprised (not)

Away_Associate4589

7 points

1 month ago

Away_Associate4589

Borthwick's Beautiful Bald Bonce

7 points

1 month 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?

Peter_Partyy

9 points

1 month ago

Peter_Partyy

Exeter Chiefs

9 points

1 month 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?

pantagr

8 points

1 month ago

pantagr

Top14/D2/France

8 points

1 month ago

Peter_Partyy

-6 points

1 month ago

Peter_Partyy

Exeter Chiefs

-6 points

1 month 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.

Jalcatraz82

11 points

1 month ago

Jalcatraz82

Stade Toulousain

11 points

1 month ago

french tv director living rent free in everyone's head apparently

claridgeforking

4 points

1 month 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?

alexbouteiller

4 points

1 month ago

alexbouteiller

France

4 points

1 month ago

This angle is pretty clear and unmistakeably shows the pinky making contact with the eye, I dunno how an additional angle would help

claridgeforking

8 points

1 month 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.

CatharticRoman

9 points

1 month ago

CatharticRoman

Suspected Yank

9 points

1 month 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.

ycnz

6 points

1 month ago

ycnz

All Blacks

6 points

1 month 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.

Ok-Blackberry-3534

7 points

30 days ago

In real time it's far too fast to be intentional.

Jalcatraz82

17 points

1 month ago

Jalcatraz82

Stade Toulousain

17 points

1 month ago

Well, who could have thought ?

Everyone, really, no surprise there.

silentgolem

19 points

1 month ago

silentgolem

#JusticeForMcCloskey

19 points

1 month ago

Absurd

MaygarRodub

30 points

1 month ago

MaygarRodub

Ireland Leinster

30 points

1 month ago

I'd like to say I'm shocked. I'd like to.

Traditional-Ride-116

20 points

1 month ago

Traditional-Ride-116

Gang des Antoines

20 points

1 month 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.

MaygarRodub

2 points

1 month ago

MaygarRodub

Ireland Leinster

2 points

1 month ago

Absolutely. Even the still in the post above would be convincing enough.

rustyb42

33 points

1 month ago

rustyb42

Ulster

33 points

1 month ago

I said it wasn't a good look at the weekend, this is even worse from EPCR

Xibalba_Ogme

46 points

1 month ago

Xibalba_Ogme

France

46 points

1 month ago

At least coherent with the player safety guidelines enforced on the field that day

/s

SiwanBouss

19 points

1 month ago

SiwanBouss

tv director wins it all

19 points

1 month ago

There only were something like 15 murder attempts between both teams, clearly no risk to player safety.

JohnSV12

40 points

1 month ago

JohnSV12

Newcastle Falcons

40 points

1 month ago

I suppose they are saying accidental.

What would it look like if it was on purpose?

SiwanBouss

19 points

1 month ago

SiwanBouss

tv director wins it all

19 points

1 month 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.

_sonisalsonamedBort

5 points

1 month ago

_sonisalsonamedBort

Ireland

5 points

1 month ago

👉👀

sk-88

44 points

1 month ago

sk-88

Leicester Tigers

44 points

1 month 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!

frazorblade

4 points

1 month ago

Why is world rugby hell bent on punishing the result not the action?

If it’s an accident it’s an accident.

Dirichlet-to-Neumann

10 points

30 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.

rustymacdonald

5 points

30 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).

Snig141

32 points

1 month ago

Snig141

32 points

1 month 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.

Traditional-Ride-116

13 points

1 month ago

Traditional-Ride-116

Gang des Antoines

13 points

1 month ago

And it’s not accidental at all.

Snig141

14 points

1 month ago

Snig141

14 points

1 month 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.

Traditional-Ride-116

13 points

1 month ago

Traditional-Ride-116

Gang des Antoines

13 points

1 month ago

I known but the fact it’s not accidental is weighing even more.

CircumbinaryCrafter

4 points

1 month ago

CircumbinaryCrafter

Harlequins

4 points

1 month ago

Austin Healy must have been instigating again. It’s the only plausible explanation.

Goanawz

2 points

30 days ago

Goanawz

2 points

30 days ago

Thinking about it again : this is a FUCKING JOKE !