Etzebeth found not guilty. Justice is served.

First topic message reminder :

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?

No drama here mate, just a very p.......d off South african.

Kingshu wrote: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 said.

Its certainbly not a candidiate for a long ban. to me I am not sure its a foul at all. But it might be ad well worth a look at

He will get a ban for that, it isn't a gouge and in my opinion he shouldn't get a ban but the RFU will pressure the ban.

viewtothegym wrote:He will get a ban for that, it isn't a gouge and in my opinion he shouldn't get a ban but the RFU will pressure the ban.

What has the RFU got to do with it?

There is some very bitter people around this morning.

The RFU are renowned for the cloak and dagger stuff,
with so much financial muscle you will be amazed how a phone call can sway a decision.
Lenient bans on English players, bans over just in time to tour with the International squad .
It would be in the RFU interest to make sure a ban occurs against any South African.

viewtothegym wrote:He will get a ban for that, it isn't a gouge and in my opinion he shouldn't get a ban but the RFU will pressure the ban.

errmmmm - whats it to do with the RFU?

You're just paranoid View.

fingers were together and fairly straight i.e. if they were bent any more then it'll be an indication of 'exploring'.

correct for it to be looked at, but once looked at a warning about making sure that the hand stays away from the face.

Methinks he could've lowered that arm and got the neck/collarbone.

I think we have a wee difference in cultures here: Biltong's rough-stuff SA culture (see his other post on growing up) vs the european 'health-and-safety/can't-walk-barefoot-because-you-might-stand-on-an-up-turned-screw' culture. The Etzebeth incident is a non-incident to the former but an issue to the latter.

Problem is that in the past we have seen:

Richie Rees, Alan Quinlan and Martin Corry banned for what was deemed to be non-intentional contact around the eye area. Not a gouge, not even on the eye but around the area.

The citing officer is following the letter of the law. If the law is dumb then blame the IRB, not an english officvial who is complying with both the law and past precedent.

Really bad form biltong

The term gouging gets pulled out way too often. Actual gouging is very rare outside of France (where they don't see it as much of an issue it seems). Contact with the eye area is what get's cited and what usually gets punished. If you put you're hand in someone's face and make contact with the eye expect to get banned. People have been blinded because someone accidentally poked them in the eye (note Seabiscuit's reference to the life ban from the RFU). There is no need to grab people by the face and the IRB are coming down hard on people who do. Hopefully they'll start to pay more attention to people being grappled by the neck (which happens multiple times in every game).

And Biltong, you seem to be advocating your son waits and gets his revenge when he can get away with it. I certainly wouldn't advocate that if I had a son. It would either be punch the guy and take your own punishment or let the officials sort it out.

PS I haven't seen the incident so not opinion on this matter in specific. But as Mrs P said, I'd rather things get cited and not banned than things that should be banned not get cited at all.

PPS The English official has nothing to do with bans, only citing. If there's nothing in it the panel won't ban him. If the panel do ban him the official did the right thing. south Africa have just dropped to 4th behind Argentina

Oh and regarding Etzebeth getting a reputation as a thug because of the 'unfair' citings. Courtney Lawes is considered a thug by a lot of people on here (it seems). He's only ever been cited once (2 week ban for tackling without arms), never had a red card and only had around 4 or 5 yellows at club and international level combined. Not sure how many were for 'dirty' play, I know one was for a marginally (IMO) late tackle.

Etzebeth is a clean player, this looks just like a contact area issue which does not look that critical. Like Lawes he might be guilty of being clumsy but neither of them are dirty players IMO. Being clumsy and acting with intent may appear a fine line but its one I'm happy to judge and historical factors rather than hysterical factors need to be considered.

HammerofThunor wrote:And Biltong, you seem to be advocating your son waits and gets his revenge when he can get away with it. I certainly wouldn't advocate that if I had a son. It would either be punch the guy and take your own punishment or let the officials sort it out.

No mate, I didn't tell him anything, he manned up all by himself, whether he is caught or not is up to the referee. the point I am making is he has learnt by himself the natural way to sort things out.

viewtothegym wrote:The RFU are renowned for the cloak and dagger stuff,
with so much financial muscle you will be amazed how a phone call can sway a decision.
Lenient bans on English players, bans over just in time to tour with the International squad .
It would be in the RFU interest to make sure a ban occurs against any South African.

Seriously? Man, you need counselling....is it because they are really lizard people perhaps? And Masons. And helped the CIA take out the World Trade Center?
If it were true, and I'm sure it isn't, it would be extremely unlikely they could do it quietly and effectively. After all they can't organise a pi$$ up in a brewery ordinarily....

Nobbled - Cognitive Behaviour Therapy is more effective than Counselling - Just a point of information there for your mate

RubyGuby wrote:Nobbled - Cognitive Behaviour Therapy is more effective than Counselling - Just a point of information there for your mate

I have been on the receiving end of CBT and thoroughly recommend it! Thanks for bringing it up!

Biltong wrote:

Life has become a place for bullshitters and sissies.

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

Just seen the alleged incident on the linked gif, and it looks like nothing to me. There should be no ban.

As other posters have mentioned, better to review all incidents and dismiss those unworthy of penalty. The rugby equivalent of "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."

Loved the quote though, Biltong. They should teach that in school.

It might not be a gouge but not sure you can justify grabbing someone by the head either way.

Bil if you do walk away will you be leaving 606v2 as well?

If so could you put in a good word in for me becoming a Mod to replace you?

Cheers Fella

Poacher turned gamekeeper. Go Hersh!

Even if it's judged to be an 'eye gouge' - we all clearly see that it wasn't one. (Although he was a very naughty boy for pretending it could have been )

Anyway, and therefore, Biltong knows he's on safe ground and knows he'll never walk away from rugby.

Send a (so called) wum to catch a wum

If he's managed to make contact with Laidlaw's eye from where he has his hand, he must have a dislocatable thumb.

Careless to have his hand across the face of his opponent like that, and should have been penalised, but nothing to me that appears worth citing, and should be cleared of the charge.

Dont go Biltongbek

Etzebeth found not guilty.


http://www.supersport.com/rugby/springboks/news/121120/Etzebeth_not_guilty_ready_for_England

Oh, thats surprising, reading these posts it sounded like Etzebeth was trying to drill both fingers into the guys eyes and rip his face off

IronMike wrote:Oh, thats surprising, reading these posts it sounded like Etzebeth was trying to drill both fingers into the guys eyes and rip his face off

Biltong wrote:Etzebeth found not guilty.


http://www.supersport.com/rugby/springboks/news/121120/Etzebeth_not_guilty_ready_for_England

Must have been an English citing officer/panel.

Well there ya go!

All that frettin, fussin and accusin for nothing!

See, a citing isn't the end of the world after all.

No doubt AWOP will be on soon bleating about how unfair it is that the NH citing panels let South Africans off without a ban when they harshly penalised Kiwis with a week

Well thats a relief.

Too many frivolous citings are going before the judiciary, and then become subject to flaky raffle type decisions.

Personally, Etzebeth is one of the most improved International locks this year. In fact I'd like to see him in the running when IRB awards time comes around in a few weeks time.

Sorry, haven't caught all of this thread. As a Scottish supporter I thought there was nothing in it and a poor citing. The incident around 12 mins in the first half when the SA 6 appears to stamp on Laidlaw's head when entering a ruck should have been cited.

Now all we need is the Samoans to get elbowed, stamped on, closelined, etc against France with no danger of the French being cited after the game and Wales will get their justice.

Biltong wrote:Etzebeth found not guilty.


http://www.supersport.com/rugby/springboks/news/121120/Etzebeth_not_guilty_ready_for_England

If the original article about the citing was written anything like that one then I understand why you were so upset. It is complete and utter Love sacks.

he interpreted as an attempt to attack Scotland flyhalf Greig Laidlaw’s eyes

No he didn't. He saw potential contact with the eye area and cited for that. If we saw the citing record I doubt very much that the terms "gouge" or "attack" ever appear. The media are again whipping these things up by deliberately using emotive terms and making stuff up.

And then the suggestion that it was done by an Englishman to disrupt the South African preparation is pathetic in the extreme. It's the sort of thing you expect on here.

What does concern me even more is they say a "marathon" hearing.

If it is such a clear cut not guilty, how is this a marathon hearing?

Does this mean at some point they actually considered a guilty verdict?

I hope that either Alan Mansel or England have to pay south Africa's costs for having to defend a false allegation.

Biltong wrote:What does concern me even more is they say a "marathon" hearing.

If it is such a clear cut not guilty, how is this a marathon hearing?

Does this mean at some point they actually considered a guilty verdict?

I don't know. The RFU and ERC always release the report of the hearing. Not sure about the IRB. Did the article say marathon? If so ignore it until backup up by another source.

aucklandlaurie wrote:I hope that either Alan Mansel or England have to pay south Africa's costs for having to defend a false allegation.

Funny because I was going to suggest Alan Mansel to sue for defamation of character. And what do you mean by "England"? The country itself doesn't really exist. Or do you mean all of us that live here? Does that include NEQ people?

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I hope that either Alan Mansel or England have to pay south Africa's costs for having to defend a false allegation.

So should every RU from the nationality of the linesman now start paying citing costs of defended charges? Or just the English? Get a grip.

If you re-run the video closely there's a point where the camera sweeps past an advert for McGrassy Knoll and if you stop it there you can just about make out (but it's clear enough in reality) Graham Rowntree carrying a high velocity rifle. That's all the evidence that is needed implicate the RFU.

And people delude themselves into believing that there was no conspiracy.

England: the country under Scotland and to the side of wales. The country that's playing South Africa this weekend.

AlastairW wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I hope that either Alan Mansel or England have to pay south Africa's costs for having to defend a false allegation.

So should every RU from the nationality of the linesman now start paying citing costs of defended charges? Or just the English? Get a grip.

What have linesman got to do with it?

Pay out of what? The UK budget?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Biltong wrote:What does concern me even more is they say a "marathon" hearing.

If it is such a clear cut not guilty, how is this a marathon hearing?

Does this mean at some point they actually considered a guilty verdict?

I don't know. The RFU and ERC always release the report of the hearing. Not sure about the IRB. Did the article say marathon? If so ignore it until backup up by another source.

aucklandlaurie wrote:I hope that either Alan Mansel or England have to pay south Africa's costs for having to defend a false allegation.

Funny because I was going to suggest Alan Mansel to sue for defamation of character. And what do you mean by "England"? The country itself doesn't really exist. Or do you mean all of us that live here? Does that include NEQ people?

I think you'll find it does exist!!!

I have been there several times!

I agree that it does not exist as a "sue-able" entity!

Biltong, given the tone of the article I would have doubts about their definition of "Marathon" in this context.

Better to cite someone, and find they not guilty, than let any possible gouging escape.

Like I said earlier, its not the severity of punishment that deters, but the certainity of it.

If players think they can gouge, and get away with it, some will try, if they believe they won't get away with it, then they won't.

Only way IRB can stamp it out, is by citing all potentional cases.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

AlastairW wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I hope that either Alan Mansel or England have to pay south Africa's costs for having to defend a false allegation.

So should every RU from the nationality of the linesman now start paying citing costs of defended charges? Or just the English? Get a grip.

What have linesman got to do with it?

Match official, whatever. That an SA member was cited playing Scotland in a Scot hosted game yet both a mod (who should know better) and you state that the nationality of the match official A) has any bereing on it at all B) all of a sudden it's an RFU super-spy/mole/deep throat/Agent X and should hence pay for citing costs is just laughable. And if 'what linesman' is the only thing you picked up on then you've probabley been hit in the head too often.

Pathetic.

HammerofThunor wrote:Pay out of what? The UK budget?

They could pay for it out of the jersey account, it doesnt look like theyve spent much money in that direction lately.

AlastairW wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

AlastairW wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I hope that either Alan Mansel or England have to pay south Africa's costs for having to defend a false allegation.

So should every RU from the nationality of the linesman now start paying citing costs of defended charges? Or just the English? Get a grip.

What have linesman got to do with it?

Match official, whatever. That an SA member was cited playing Scotland in a Scot hosted game yet both a mod (who should know better) and you state that the nationality of the match official A) has any bereing on it at all B) all of a sudden it's an RFU super-spy/mole/deep throat/Agent X and should hence pay for citing costs is just laughable. And if 'what linesman' is the only thing you picked up on then you've probabley been hit in the head too often.

Pathetic.

If you dont know the difference between a linesman and a citing commissioner then you really shouldnt be bandying the word pathetic about.

Why do they bother with such marginal incidents? It's just stuffed everyone around, it's gotta be a clear cut incident and not some 'is it or isn't it' carry on. Bet Meyer and co are filthy for the disruption.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Pay out of what? The UK budget?

They could pay for it out of the jersey account, it doesnt look like theyve spent much money in that direction lately.

Oh now you're an expert on UK budgetry matters?

Save us Obi Wan AucklandLaurie, you're our only hope.