Did Rougerie gouge McCaw?

First topic message reminder :

Can't recall seeing anything myself although McCaw was acting a little strange near the end of the game. Anything in it?


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10761510

Edit - KRD. Note that while the article imples Dusatoir gouged, evidence posted down-thread suggests that if anyone gouged it was Rougerie so I've amended the title of the thread

Looks like things have progressed since I was last on and the implied version of Dusautoir was actually Rougerie.....unless there was another incident!?!?

Here's the clip anyway so you can make up your own mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hneJ8Ws8Yuc

JDandfries wrote:

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:To try and avoid getting too bogged down in circular arguments here... let's try and describe what we are seeing in that footage.

For me, the damning bit is that Rougerie does not just launch his arms in to the ruck in an effort to get the ball or remove McCaw. He appears to almost delicately move his hand into position (around certain obstacles) and then clearly grips down around the eyesocket area and pulls back, lifting McCaw's head backwards with the force of it. You can see that from two different angles.

Now there is always going to be the thorny issue of intention. (Some philosophers and historians have given up on working out "true intention" long ago) But I'd like to know what others are seeing?

I think you are tryng to tell people what you think you see.

The footage is not clear enough, in my opinion, to make such a certain accusation.

What can be said is that there is contact between hand and face, anything more is guesswork really

Yep JD... I thought it was pretty clear that I was asking for everyone's "opinions" and "interpretations". Surely that is the point. My words are my opinion on the matter. And Rougerie will not be hung or freed by them whatever their content.

True, but I don't know how you say you can SEE that he grips MCCaws eyesocket, the footgae simply isnt that clear!

No the red amrks arent proof, but the footage of the payers fingers going in his eye is.

The deliberate intent is unproven, but as a minimum it should be a citing for reckless contact with the eye or eye area. Even on teh fuzzy footage its pretty undeniable even for those who decided before tehy saw it that it wasnt a gouge that the fingers went into the eye area.

Ive read plenty of people say that shoudl be an automatic life ban regardless of intent and that theres no such thing as accidental contact.
I beleive that to be ludicrous ( Id cite the North incident as a clear reason why) but under the IRB regualtions as they are this is clealry a citeable offence which carries a pretty stiff minimum penalty even if they beleive it to be accidental.

Can you show me any footage that show definatively that his finger goes in his eye?

They haven't seen any. They are confusing what they want to believe they are seeing with what is actually there. Rougeries finger could be in McCaws nose for all you can see on that clip.

What's the penalty for nose gouging anyway? My mum used to send me to my room for that when I was a kid.

leinsterbaby wrote:They haven't seen any. They are confusing what they want to believe they are seeing with what is actually there. Rougeries finger could be in McCaws nose for all you can see on that clip.

What's the penalty for nose gouging anyway? My mum used to send me to my room for that when I was a kid.

Yep makes perfect sense. The two posters who originally were supportive of the French players against the allegations and who subsequently changed their opinions upon seeing the footage are clearly biased and have an agenda.

But the two posters who have since very early on belittled the incident and have implied that McCaw somehow deserved what he got... they're the impartial observers who are just going on what they see and have no axe to grind. Yep

JDandfries wrote:Can you show me any footage that show definatively that his finger goes in his eye?

I haven't seen any such footage, but I have seen footage that shows contact with the eye area. That's all that's needed to get a citing. Rougerie is very lucky this didn't come out earlier.

Loo at the very end of the front on view, theres no question the finger is caught in the edge of his eye socket at the end of the rake. Its about as clear as youre going to get. The finger is nowhere near his nose.
The penalty is for eye or eye area contact, theres clear footage showing breif eye area contact pulling his head up. Its not clear if that was the entirity of the eye contact or if it had been going on when the players leg was obscuring the view, if the actual eye was touched, how much damage was done, and if it was intentional...but none of that is required for a player to be cited and banned. If hes cited Mccaw will make a statement, hes the one who would know for sure how much contact there really was.

Try and not base this on what you decided before you saw the video. OK there could be a foreshortening effect and it may just be coincidence taht the motion of mccaws head and the distortion of his face mimics the motion of the finger which is level with his eye socket...but I know which one is far more liekly.
I didnt think much of this story when i first read it, and questioned it. Now I see the video I see what the fuss is about.

The key point, Pete, is he cannot be cited now.

Cant he? Oh.

Well then, nothing to see here lets move on.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Cant he? Oh.

Well then, nothing to see here lets move on.

Sham because Rougerie had a fine game. Now forever known as a gouger

Seriusly, anyone bringing this ambiuous clip up in court would get laughed at.

There is a doubt that his finger went in his eye, because from the clip on this post you physically CANT see, you are confusing this with what you want to think happened.

chewed_mintie wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Cant he? Oh.

Well then, nothing to see here lets move on.

Sham because Rougerie had a fine game. Now forever known as a gouger

Why? There is no proof he stuck his finger in anyones eye. I will remember him as a great player. I will remember McCaw as a very good player who cheats a lot.

Hell, I wish you guys put this much effort in defending Burger.

But one man's thug is another man's hero I suppose.

Difference with Burger was you could see his finger on Fitz' eye. It was clear cut. He only got three weeks for that if I remember correctly. If that's the precedent it's no surprise Rougerie wasn't cited.

I think ill take biltongs take on this one and wait for the next meeting between the two sides where some abs might just recall this incident when rougerie goes to ground.
If he doesnt front from behind the coward he is it will be Swings n roundabouts for him.
Only himself to blame.

Lenster youre obviously struggling to take an objecive view in beng unable to separate the incident in isolation and the fact that its mccaw.

So why bother?

If it were bod youd be in boots n all over rougerie. Whats obvious here is those downplaying the incident seem to also not like mccaw much. Isnt that an odd coincidence.

leinsterbaby wrote:Difference with Burger was you could see his finger on Fitz' eye. It was clear cut. He only got three weeks for that if I remember correctly. If that's the precedent it's no surprise Rougerie wasn't cited.

But it's not the precedent. After Burger the IRB dramatically upped the penalties. And he got 8 weeks not 3 IIRC, the same as Parisse got for eye contact on Isaac Ross the previous day.

Certainly there's enough in that video to justify a hearing. And nowadays even accidental contact with the eye area gets you a hefty ban.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Cant he? Oh.

Well then, nothing to see here lets move on.

dunno really - would still like this alleged gouging to be clarified and if proven right Rougerie should serve a ban full stop. then we can move on with either Rougerie being forever remembered as a gouger/thug or some kiwi (media) being exposed as a bunch of self-obsessed hypocrites.

biltongbek wrote:Hell, I wish you guys put this much effort in defending Burger.

But one man's thug is another man's hero I suppose.

Maybe its impossible to defend the indefensible.

I just cant wait for the next time rougerie faces the abs again. He should square up now or face the music later. Simple as that. Hes left a bitter taste and we should just drop it for now. He'll keep.

Taylorman wrote:I think ill take biltongs take on this one and wait for the next meeting between the two sides where some abs might just recall this incident when rougerie goes to ground.If he doesnt front from behind the coward he is it will be Swings n roundabouts for him.
Only himself to blame.

Taylorman, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Stay away from the dark side, you may not take the laws into your own hands.

Boyne wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Hell, I wish you guys put this much effort in defending Burger.

But one man's thug is another man's hero I suppose.

Maybe its impossible to defend the indefensible.

Apparantly it is, have you not been reading this thread?

Kiwireddevil wrote:

leinsterbaby wrote:Difference with Burger was you could see his finger on Fitz' eye. It was clear cut. He only got three weeks for that if I remember correctly. If that's the precedent it's no surprise Rougerie wasn't cited.

But it's not the precedent. After Burger the IRB dramatically upped the penalties. And he got 8 weeks not 3 IIRC, the same as Parisse got for eye contact on Isaac Ross the previous day.

Certainly there's enough in that video to justify a hearing. And nowadays even accidental contact with the eye area gets you a hefty ban.

You're right it's not the precedent. I actually don't think what Parisse did looked that bad either if I remember correctly. He did make contact with eye area without sticking his finger in the eye. Is that right? So citings aren't exactly an exact science. Though perhaps the NZ commentators actually saw a finger in the eye because they suggested 6 months a fair sanction. However I'm not going to brand him a gouger until I see evidence.

Try watching the video clip the leinster, he clearly gets a finger in teh guys eye. It take sa pretty desperate atempt to stick by a position yoiud set on before seeing the clip to continue with the line of argument.
The 6 month ban would be harder to justify under precedent. Even the blanatat gouge earlier in the tournament didnt get that.

Anyway if the citeing persiod has passed its irrelevant now.

But dont try and pretend the eye contact didnt happen, its pretty clear even on the blurry version of the footage that it did. That you cant even admit that suggests that you have decided a psoition and are trying to defend it rather than making a rational assement of the evidence as its presented.

Taylorman wrote:I just cant wait for the next time rougerie faces the abs again. He should square up now or face the music later. Simple as that. Hes left a bitter taste and we should just drop it for now. He'll keep.

Yip, bit like that nacker McCaw running his knee into Parra? And whats this about imposing a fine to the French for "overstepping the mark"??

I am sick of the rugby world pondering to New Zealand. Next time the haka comes to Dublin, it should be mooned, the cheek.

Not enough France were robbed in the final, they need to be fined for "over stepping the mark"...

Sick.

I dont get this thing with the Haka, which after all is basically a declaration of war.

i thought the French response to it was awesome, and added to the spectacle.

Seabiscuit, I guess you havent really studied the footage, you CANNOT, repeat CANNOT see a finger go in an eye, because there is a leg in the way - it may LOOK LIKE that is what happened, but it certainly doesnt prove that this is what happeend!

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Try watching the video clip the leinster, he clearly gets a finger in teh guys eye. It take sa pretty desperate atempt to stick by a position yoiud set on before seeing the clip to continue with the line of argument.
The 6 month ban would be harder to justify under precedent. Even the blanatat gouge earlier in the tournament didnt get that.

Anyway if the citeing persiod has passed its irrelevant now.

But dont try and pretend the eye contact didnt happen, its pretty clear even on the blurry version of the footage that it did. That you cant even admit that suggests that you have decided a psoition and are trying to defend it rather than making a rational assement of the evidence as its presented.

Are you drunk or something I've watched it about 5 times and didnt make any comment as to whether it was or wasn't a "gouge" until I'd seen the video. The video that DOES NOT prove that there was a gouge. Watch it yourself and instead comment on what is there not what you want to believe is there. Rougerie has been branded a gouger. This involves putting your finger in someones eye. There is no way you can prove he did that from that video.

I don't mean this to sound flippant, but shouldn't we treat this as we treat a possible try that gets referred to the video ref, i.e. if you can't see the grounding of the ball, you can't award the try?

The kiwis know the French were blatantly robbed and the whole world saw Mc Caw run his knee into Parra.

They need something to whinge about as to not feel as if they just robbed a bank.

I hope they enjoy the hollow victory and that a ref some day has the balls to stand up to Mc Caws cheating.

Disgraceful.

If they needed to whinge, they'd have talked to the citing commissioner.

Boyne wrote:The kiwis know the French were blatantly robbed and the whole world saw Mc Caw run his knee into Parra.

They need something to whinge about as to not feel as if they just robbed a bank.

I hope they enjoy the hollow victory and that a ref some day has the balls to stand up to Mc Caws cheating.

Disgraceful.

Wow, tell us how you really feel.

There's an awful lot of chips on shoulders in evidence this week.

Boyne wrote:The kiwis know the French were blatantly robbed and the whole world saw Mc Caw run his knee into Parra.

They need something to whinge about as to not feel as if they just robbed a bank.

I hope they enjoy the hollow victory and that a ref some day has the balls to stand up to Mc Caws cheating.

Disgraceful.

I agree it's sour grapes from the kiwis who were quite dirty, with high tackles a knee to the head that ended Parras final. Of course none of that will be reviewed on NZ tv yet it's not enough that France the better team were robbed by very one sided refereeing, Dusatoir no wait Rougerie is now branded a gouger too while we all know that whenever a kiwi does something dirty it's always an accident.

Look at this clip of the Parra incident. Not only does McCaw knee parra in the head he also punches him first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wr8OU3hRiw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I wonder was this footage reviewed on NZ tv. I doubt it. You cannot of course prove intention but a punch followed by a knee to the head would be worth citing based on that evidence if Rougerie had a case to answer based on the footage I've seen.

I'm sorry anyone condoning Eye gouging on here is an idiot - end of.

Look at the bloody video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hneJ8Ws8Yuc if you cannot see that Rougerie gives the back wall of McCaw's eye sockets a tickle then you are blind.

On the Parra incident - who here (who has actually played the game because I think there are a lot who haven't) hasn't been caught in one way or another by a knee, elbow, foot when you've been on the wrong side. How on earth is anyone supposed to clear out a ruck if you're not allowed to get low enough to the ground? Hell I've been kicked in the eye by the opposition before, it was accidental as I got up as someone came through to clear out - it happens. The replays show Dusutoir was McCaw's target.

leinsterbaby wrote:Look at this clip of the Parra incident. Not only does McCaw knee parra in the head he also punches him first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wr8OU3hRiw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I wonder was this footage reviewed on NZ tv. I doubt it. You cannot of course prove intention but a punch followed by a knee to the head would be worth citing based on that evidence if Rougerie had a case to answer based on the footage I've seen.

You can see McCaw looking at his target even at real speed. His target was Dusutoir, not Parra. ARe you blind?

I've never seen anyone punch with the top side of their hand before, is this a new technique???

chewed_mintie wrote:

leinsterbaby wrote:Look at this clip of the Parra incident. Not only does McCaw knee parra in the head he also punches him first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wr8OU3hRiw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I wonder was this footage reviewed on NZ tv. I doubt it. You cannot of course prove intention but a punch followed by a knee to the head would be worth citing based on that evidence if Rougerie had a case to answer based on the footage I've seen.

You can see McCaw looking at his target even at real speed. His target was Dusutoir, not Parra. ARe you blind?

Is who blind??? McCaw you mean, if Dusutoir was the target he was way off, punching and kneeing a prone Parra - classy!

Supporting an eye gouger - classy!

chewed_mintie wrote:Supporting an eye gouger - classy!

Alleged eye gouger i think you will find, but what I was supporting was Morgan Parra who was kneeded in the head, but I guess you are condoning that?

chewed_mintie wrote:I'm sorry anyone condoning Eye gouging on here is an idiot - end of.

I concur. Eye gouging is a serious matter and needs to be condemned regardless of whether or not Joubert's swiss bank account is looking a bit healthier since the Final and McCaw simultaniosly elbowed and punched Parra in the melon en route to another ruck infringement.

JDandfries wrote:I dont get this thing with the Haka, which after all is basically a declaration of war.

i thought the French response to it was awesome, and added to the spectacle.

Seabiscuit, I guess you havent really studied the footage, you CANNOT, repeat CANNOT see a finger go in an eye, because there is a leg in the way - it may LOOK LIKE that is what happened, but it certainly doesnt prove that this is what happeend!

When the leg goes you can see the finger clearly in the eye socket at the end. The contact is eye or eye area.

Its been covered so many times its riduclous. Its impossibel to debate with people who make their mainds up on an issue then try and argue over every thing based looking for evidence to support their pre formed opinion.

Just because Mccaw kneed someone in the head and just because France may or may not have been robbed and just because the new zealand media are overhyping this and just because the NZ press and fans are notorious whingers with massive double standards does not change the fact that the lad got his finger in Mccaws eyes socket, quite probably more than that. It may or may not have been deliberate but it still happened no matter how much you want it to have not happened.

You can't even see McCaws head in the frame where you see him connect with Parras head so I'm not sure how you know where he is looking. I just have normal vision you must have some sort of psychic vision mintie.

[quote="Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler"]

JDandfries wrote:I dont get this thing with the Haka, which after all is basically a declaration of war.

i thought the French response to it was awesome, and added to the spectacle.

Seabiscuit, I guess you havent really studied the footage, you CANNOT, repeat CANNOT see a finger go in an eye, because there is a leg in the way - it may LOOK LIKE that is what happened, but it certainly doesnt prove that this is what happeend!

When the leg goes you can see the finger clearly in the eye socket at the end. The contact is eye or eye area.

No you can't, you are seeing things.

Still some clear denial going on here.
Mccaw comes in and hits dusattoir full on. So how is that missed 'by a mile'.
His hand 'brushed' parra as he went passed and parra is clearly lifting his head up into the path of mccaws knee.
Not sure why you people need a narration and to compare this to rougeries eye gouging is a joke. You have clearly fallen far from the objective bandwagon such is your pure jealousy and envy of our team.

Unbelievable what some people can talk themselves into seeing because it fits the motivation.
Truly sad.

[img][/img][img][/img]

Excuse crude attempt to get a pic on here...just trying to demonstrate McCaw's target. Who here, who has actually played the game, can say clearly that they have never been hit by either team mates or the opposition with a knee, elbow or whatever accidentally as that person cleared out a ruck.

Taylorman wrote:Still some clear denial going on here.
Mccaw comes in and hits dusattoir full on. So how is that missed 'by a mile'.
His hand 'brushed' parra as he went passed and parra is clearly lifting his head up into the path of mccaws knee.
Not sure why you people need a narration and to compare this to rougeries eye gouging is a joke. You have clearly fallen far from the objective bandwagon such is your pure jealousy and envy of our team.

Unbelievable what some people can talk themselves into seeing because it fits the motivation.
Truly sad.

oh the hypocracy of what you have just said, it is evident beyond doubt that McCaw knees Parra in the head, completely without doubt, yet this was Parra's fault for lifting his head.

But, when there is a blurred video, which appears to show a french player's hand making contact with the face of McCaw (who surprisingly was lying on teh wrong side) it is a done deal, and definate eye gouging.

Now who has fallen off the objective bandwagon?

Truely Sad

[img][/img]

You can see a finger in McCaw's eye here...clear as day

chewed_mintie wrote:[img][/img][img][/img]

Excuse crude attempt to get a pic on here...just trying to demonstrate McCaw's target. Who here, who has actually played the game, can say clearly that they have never been hit by either team mates or the opposition with a knee, elbow or whatever accidentally as that person cleared out a ruck.

let's not be so naive about this, Ritchie McCaw, as good a player as he is, is probably THE biggest cheat in the game.

I hope I am wrong, but I would crtainly not discount the possibility that although he was going to clear Dusutoir out (before falling on the ball of course) he thought he could leave his mark on the guy on the ground (who he acould see clearly out of his proriferal vision) - it certainly is a valid arguement given that he makes a pretty solid contact with Parra's head.

[img][/img]

You can see a finger in McCaw's eye here...clear as day

That is about as clear as mud, seriously are you kidding?

Its the frustration that happens to players in the heat of the moment. For the last 15 mins it became clear that Joubert didnt want to be there or make any decisions. He knew that the ABs were shot and any penalty against them or score was end of game.

McCaw knew he wasnt going to get penalised and when he knows that from a ref he will just be all over the place. The gouging isnt conclusive to my mind but it is clear from Dusatoirs shoeing of McCaw around the same time as the alleged gouging that frustrations were getting high (think Jamie Heaslips sending off in the game last year - and that was only after 15 mins).

Ok, so out of sheer frustration France resorted to eye gouging?