Etzebeth found not guilty. Justice is served.

Here is a link to the alleged eye gouge by Etzebeth, you can clearly see the scottish player being tackled by numerous Boks, Etzebeth has his hand on his mouth and nose, and then after a few second removes he hand. At worst his thumb is over the Scottish player's bridge of his nose.

http://prem0.hiboox.com/images/4712/diapo38402bac6b331dd0754b0868b2389b89.gif

apaarantly it is an English match official that cited Etzebeth. A bit coincidental?

I dont hink he's got anything to worry about.

I should also add that Etzebeth has had a brilliant year of rugby.

Polish up those walking boots. He grabbed the Scotsman's face with his hand and, wait for it..... he made hand contact with the eye or the eye area !!

Ergo- he should and will be punished.

Warthog how many times do a player get a palm in his face during rugby matches.

An eye gouge is a finger that points into an eye, put your hand over someone's face like that, the four fingers over his mouth and thumb on the brodge of the nose, then explain to me how you will gouge from there.

It will have to be a pretty deliberate move to gouge. In his case he removes his hand away from the face.

If you think that is a gouge then you are as one eyed as the official who cited him.

yep agree, you cannot see much evidence from this footage. at worst it would be purely accidental : let's hope Etzebeth gets away with nothing. do the citing officials have access to other videos?

The way I see it, he grabbed the Scotsman's face. It wasn't a palm slap like move to the face- he definitely left his hand there long enough to stick his finger into his eye.

Whether or not he did, is another matter. Fact is, he grabbed at his face (upper part- close to the eye) long enough to have a good old poke.

Players have been banned for less. Sorry.

Any truth in the rumour that Laidlaw started it by taunting the South African with "Etzebeth is a girl's name...Etzebeth is a girl's name..."

you should watch a few more mauls mate.

Biltong wrote:you should watch a few more mauls mate.

OK whatever. Sorry I spoke. How dare I have an alternative opinion.

Casartelli, you shouldnt listen to rumours, unless they are of the Fleetwood mac variety.

Warthog wrote:

Biltong wrote:you should watch a few more mauls mate.

OK whatever. Sorry I spoke. How dare I have an alternative opinion.

Mate, you say you see fingers in the eye. Seriously?

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I dont hink he's got anything to worry about.

I should also add that Etzebeth has had a brilliant year of rugby.

+1

Might have been an eye tooth..

As with tip tackles the rule is simple. If you put your hand in a psoition where it can contact the eyes or eye area and it does, you can be cited. Its yoru resposnibility to take care to ensure it doesnt happen.
The guy who got banned for life for blinding someone did it with a hand off to the face.

Yes its probably not a deliberate act as such or an eye gouge, but its eye contact arguably from a reckless act. The citeing is for eye contact, not gouging. Its only lurid newspapers ( and the Ospreys) that bandy about the word "gouge" every time theres some eye contact.

Your suggestion of bias in the match officials is pretty poor Biltong, on a par with the New Zealand Herald or AWOP.

Etzebeth seems an interesting character. Alleged gouging, alleged headbutts etc. This, however, is pure class - a collision with the Bismarck;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCHFsHlKpoo

Didn't look like much going on there. Did the Scottish player (name?) flinch or react during/after? Any marks? Bloodshot eyes? Happened pretty quick. In most gouge footage I've seen, the gouger labours on it a bit and it's real obvious what they're trying to do. Doesn't seem that way with this one.

It will be a shame if the lad gets a ban for that. It doesn't look deliberate. Clumsy yes - the rule is clear about contact with the eye area, but an eye gouge?

When you think what that that coward Rougerie got away with......

Peter, I am so fedup of South African players being made out to be monsters.

Earlier in the year, Sharpe taunted Etzebeth face to face, when etzebeth mimicked the action of a head butt (he never followed hrough or made contact) Sharpe made such a scene about it, his actions was clear, here is a young man that I will taunt and gain a penalty from, it worked. he got cited and banned for two weeks.

Now the guy goes into a tackle trying to keep little old Laidlaw up whilst he is being tackled by a number of Boks, and all of a sudden the guy is cited again.

This is a young kid, he is 21 years old.

If he is banned for this again then that is two marks on his record for a promising young star, every time there after when he does anything he will be seen as a serial offender.

It is pathetic.

Etzebeth is a hard, strong young man, but no dirty player.

Richee Rees got made an example of against Dylan Hartley (of all people !!)

He pushed him in the face during some handbags. Pathetic

Elizabeth will be fine.

That was nowt.

Two points.

(1) Do we know that is the incident the citing officer is referring too?

(2) If it is then Laidlaw should be able to sort out very easily if there was any contact with his eyes.

I'd actually rather have incidents that are doubtful cited so they can be clarified. If necessary the panel can rule that there was no contact with the eye area. That is better than what happened with Rougerie.

MrsP wrote:Two points.

(1) Do we know that is the incident the citing officer is referring too?

(2) If it is then Laidlaw should be able to sort out very easily if there was any contact with his eyes.

I'd actually rather have incidents that are doubtful cited so they can be clarified. If necessary the panel can rule that there was no contact with the eye area. That is better than what happened with Rougerie.

http://prem0.hiboox.com/images/4712/diapo38402bac6b331dd0754b0868b2389b89.gif

Apparantly so MrsP, 14 minutes into the second half.

I wonder what's worse - possible foul play, or accusing the official of cheating and self-serving skulduggery. Of course, if he get's banned the citing officer and panel will also being involved in this disgraceful behaviour.

"apaarantly it is an English match official that cited Etzebeth. A bit coincidental?"

Explain yourself.

Well from what I can see, Etzebeth just had his hand over Laidlaw's mouth/ face for a split second (we are watching in slow motion and it is only about 2 seconds then). There is no way there is any gouging going on at all in that clip. I agree with Biltong, if that is a gouge then our game is heading the way of football.

HERSH wrote:"apaarantly it is an English match official that cited Etzebeth. A bit coincidental?"

Explain yourself.

Arent England playing South Africa this weekend in London?

HERSH wrote:"apaarantly it is an English match official that cited Etzebeth. A bit coincidental?"

Explain yourself.

I read it on the blog I got the clip, so I thought it grabs attention.

That's a shocking accusation!

England would never do anything like that.

Sorry clip is to small to judge needs to be blown up and frozen as it undoubtedly will by the citing officer.A hand in the face is common place and a "Gouge"to my mind has to be intentional.A player should`nt be punished for accidental eye contact.

To be honest I think he may get 1 or 2 weeks but not 12. The thing is its not a tackle situation its a maul. He has full control of where he puts his hands and put them directly onto Laidlaws face and got close to his eyes.

By the looks of it it doesn't look like he intended to stick his fingers in his eyes but the act was a bit naive... something as a WP supporter I must admit that Etzebeth often guilty of... i.e. Sharpe goading him into getting himself a ban for trying to headbutt him and not even connecting.

He can please innocence sure but anyone who has played the game at a reasonable level knows in these situations your are almost always in control of where and where your hands are. It doesn't matter if you're playing test rugby, club rugby etc etc.

He's got to school up... this is his first season and this may be his 2nd ban in test rugby.... even Bakkies wasn't that cavalier... and at the moment, Bakkies would take this kid to the cleaners.

Biltong wrote:This is a young kid, he is 21 years old.

I usually agree with you Bil, but not this time. Age is no excuse, he's playing at the highest level and is expected to act as such, which includes knowing htat a hand in the eye area is usually not going to end well, as do pulled headbutts. As for being labelled as monsters, who exactley said that? If it was a hack journo or tabloid papers, they're scumbags what else can you expect from them? They put the boot into everyone if they think they can. No one here has labelled anyone from SA as such.

The mock headbutt against Sharpe was gamesmanship pure & simple. Etzebeth should have walked away, he didn't, and the old dog Sharpe got the reaction (and penalty) he was looking for before running to daddy. I don't agree with the gamesmanship, but it was 6 of 1, half dozen of the other.

That gif shows a thumb in the eye area. not necessarily a gouge, but certainly in the area or a little too close to the eye. That's never going to end well.
As for having a crack at the English lines man, that's a speculative stretch and i've seen you bash people that have suggested much the same about similar calls.

and apparently (seeing as there was no citing) Maurie Fa'asavalu was giving Ken Owens a cuddle

Soon, Etzebeth will be told not to make contact, Meyer will tell him to win line out ball and crash the ball up.

Ban him

It's the only way some people learn

learn what?

Don't tackle people shorter than you, it will get you into trouble.

It may be harsh Bil but sometimes it's the only way kids learn, he knew what he was doing.

HERSH wrote:Ban him

It's the only way some people learn

So we keep telling the mods....

The thing is... he's getting a name for himself, not fully as an enforcer... but as someone who is a little reckless. Something like that does nothing to win the ball back but potentially could end up with him banned or put in the sin bin... which against better opposition could be the difference between winning and losing.

BB - that wasn't a tackle. That was a maul dude... he knew what he was doing... was it illegal... on the margins.

Certainly it lies in the grey area between legality and illegality and I wouldn't be surprised if he is banned for a game or two... he's just come back from a ban so its not like he can plead good conduct.

Why does he have to grab the face... just don't do it... one slip and you're in the eye area and facing half a season on the sidelines.

Very good Peter

Can't see footage but The game's laws refer to "contact with eyes or the eye area of an opponent"

If he made Contact with the eye area then the Citing official is right to bring it up for closer examination.

It sounds like he did back brief contact with the eye area and therefore should be cited.

If there was nothing in it they all is dropped, but better to cite all cases, than let one slip.

as they say its not the severity of punishment that deters people, but the certianity of it.

By citing doutful cases you are making sure, that all cases are looked at and noone would get away with gouging, thats what deters players, not lengthly bans.

Well the fact remains, if that gets a ban, I am walking away from rugby for two reasons, firstly the ridiculous inconsistencies regarding bans and offences commited, and secondly if rugby comes to the point where a hand near a face is immediately construed as illegal, then we might as well play touch rugby, as you will never not have a hand in a face in rugby.

these days people duck in tackles, try to get underneath spread arms. It is nigh on impossible to avoid it.

fa0019 wrote:

BB - that wasn't a tackle. That was a maul dude... he knew what he was doing... was it illegal... on the margins.

He was the one trying to make it a maul, by trying to keep the ball in the air.

Biltong wrote:Well the fact remains, if that gets a ban, I am walking away from rugby for two reasons, firstly the ridiculous inconsistencies regarding bans and offences commited, and secondly if rugby comes to the point where a hand near a face is immediately construed as illegal, then we might as well play touch rugby, as you will never not have a hand in a face in rugby.

these days people duck in tackles, try to get underneath spread arms. It is nigh on impossible to avoid it.

Who took the jam out of your Doughnut this morning Bil?

fa0019 wrote:The thing is... he's getting a name for himself, not fully as an enforcer... but as someone who is a little reckless. Something like that does nothing to win the ball back but potentially could end up with him banned or put in the sin bin... which against better opposition could be the difference between winning and losing.

BB - that wasn't a tackle. That was a maul dude... he knew what he was doing... was it illegal... on the margins.

Certainly it lies in the grey area between legality and illegality and I wouldn't be surprised if he is banned for a game or two... he's just come back from a ban so its not like he can plead good conduct.

Why does he have to grab the face... just don't do it... one slip and you're in the eye area and facing half a season on the sidelines.

Good point.

Even if he had no intention of eye contact, the defence of "I wasn't trying to gouge, I just wanted to put him in a face-lock" could be considered weak. Bit dubious. Murky. Too much grey area.

Best policy - avoid grabbing opposition players by the head.

HERSH wrote:

Biltong wrote:Well the fact remains, if that gets a ban, I am walking away from rugby for two reasons, firstly the ridiculous inconsistencies regarding bans and offences commited, and secondly if rugby comes to the point where a hand near a face is immediately construed as illegal, then we might as well play touch rugby, as you will never not have a hand in a face in rugby.

these days people duck in tackles, try to get underneath spread arms. It is nigh on impossible to avoid it.

Who took the jam out of your Doughnut this morning Bil?

Hersh, the notification of this citing just got to me, I am trying to remember who did the shoulder charge two weekends ago and the opposition player went off, too lazy to go find the thread where it was mentioned.

It was exactly the same as Bakkies' shoulder clear out against Jones in 2009, nothing, no citing, no ban nothing. It was even said by the commentators at the time it was legal and unfortunate for the injured player.

Here Etzebeth is trying to keep a player up to turn over possession, Laidlaw is trying to slide out of his grip to get the ball on the floor.

The same thing with his alleged headbutt, he got two weeks ban.

I am incensed at the inconsistencies with these bans, especially when they are so blatant. When Bakkies Botha Headbutted cowan, it was a cowardly act and deserved a 12 month ban, when Greyling went into McCaw's face with the elbow, it is a cowardly act and deserves a ban of 12 months.

But when a youngster is banned for two weeks because of an experienced player, too %^*^* to play a player man on man, and want's to con the referee into getting penalties rugby loses it's flavor for me.

Rugby is a contact sport, it is a sport where the men and the boys are seperated.

My own son this year at 9 years old had a guy trying to smother him in a maul. He waited for the guy in the next move when he carried the ball, and tackled him totally legally then gave him a few jabs in the ribs, that is how I want my son to see life.

an eye for an eye. Don't run to daddy or mommy or the teacher or the referee. sort it out.

Life has become a place for bullshitters and sissies.

FFS man up, life is tough, learn to deal with it.

Keep calm and carry on old fella.

Does not look particularly dangerous. reckless? Probably. short ban given his previous. week or two.

If it is a week ban, it might as well be 10 weeks. There is only one game left.

"walking away from rugby"? never had you down as a drama queen biltong. Nothing will come from the citing, I agree with Kingshu

Biltong wrote:

HERSH wrote:

Biltong wrote:Well the fact remains, if that gets a ban, I am walking away from rugby for two reasons, firstly the ridiculous inconsistencies regarding bans and offences commited, and secondly if rugby comes to the point where a hand near a face is immediately construed as illegal, then we might as well play touch rugby, as you will never not have a hand in a face in rugby.

these days people duck in tackles, try to get underneath spread arms. It is nigh on impossible to avoid it.

Who took the jam out of your Doughnut this morning Bil?

Hersh, the notification of this citing just got to me, I am trying to remember who did the shoulder charge two weekends ago and the opposition player went off, too lazy to go find the thread where it was mentioned.

It was exactly the same as Bakkies' shoulder clear out against Jones in 2009, nothing, no citing, no ban nothing. It was even said by the commentators at the time it was legal and unfortunate for the injured player.

Here Etzebeth is trying to keep a player up to turn over possession, Laidlaw is trying to slide out of his grip to get the ball on the floor.

The same thing with his alleged headbutt, he got two weeks ban.

I am incensed at the inconsistencies with these bans, especially when they are so blatant. When Bakkies Botha Headbutted cowan, it was a cowardly act and deserved a 12 month ban, when Greyling went into McCaw's face with the elbow, it is a cowardly act and deserves a ban of 12 months.

But when a youngster is banned for two weeks because of an experienced player, too %^*^* to play a player man on man, and want's to con the referee into getting penalties rugby loses it's flavor for me.

Rugby is a contact sport, it is a sport where the men and the boys are seperated.

My own son this year at 9 years old had a guy trying to smother him in a maul. He waited for the guy in the next move when he carried the ball, and tackled him totally legally then gave him a few jabs in the ribs, that is how I want my son to see life.

an eye for an eye. Don't run to daddy or mommy or the teacher or the referee. sort it out.

Life has become a place for bullshitters and sissies.

FFS man up, life is tough, learn to deal with it.

Perhaps you could have used a different expression there Biltong?

Given the circumstances and all.