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

DOD wrote:Looked at this and it is the one where McCaw comes in from the side and causes Doussain to knock on (should have been a penalty to France). In real time (i.e one second) McCaw is on the wrong side (surprise) and Rougerie goes in and looks to grab McCaw and then pulls him out of the way. In that second his first grab was on mccaws face to me its intentional in that Rougerie wants to clear the player out and grabs the face given the speed in real time its unintentional that he grabs him around the face...6 week ban.

I'd agree plus while Rougerie did grab McCaw around eye area and the laws are clear on this I am reluctant to label this as gouging in the classic sense in that McCaws eyes weren't bloodshot but there was a cut near the eye where the pressure was applied. Therefore can we really say Rougerie wanted to make McCaw blind? I think not. 8 weeks max based on clean record and difficulty to prove intention.

Even harder to prove McCaw intended to knee parra but worth a citing and review plus a yellow for Kaino's high tackle.

Donalds kick was over. Well done Donald.

Also if France really are to be fined for their haka challenge NZ definitely should be too and a review done on all their Hakas at the WC.

Looks like a raking, but probably low end in seriousness. That is a 12 week starting point.

Well, when I left for work this morning this thread had a very different look to it. Since the footage has come out it's all kicked off.

Rougerie should be in deep do-do for that, it's a about the cleanest "gouge" I've seen in a high-profile game since Burger in '09.

The only thing is, the last time I looked the citing officer only had 36 hours after the game in which to cite a player to the committee.

I think the Parra knee was just a clumsy coming together, probably made worse by the fact that McCaw was already going off his feet after the ball - again.

I've also read plenty about McCaw being a cheat, but he's a 7 - so what does anyone really expect? If he weren't cheating he'd get a right bullocking if I was his coach; 7's were born offside, on the wrong side of the ruck, off their feet with their paws all over the pill, and it's the ref's job to penalise them for it, Joubert failed to do that and that's not McCaw's fault. I think even the most ardent AB supporter has to admit that Joubert had a bad day at the office, but you can't blame McCaw for making hay, I'd have filled both boots and had replacements ready at half time, well, if I was any good I would've.

I would hope things are going on behind the scenes to sort this mess out as Rougerie needs to get straightened out for that, it has no place in the game and never has had. Even in my day the 3 areas of a player that were sacrosanct was his eyes, his ballsack and his a£$ehole (who was the Saffer the "index anal probe" was named after? Jan or Van something?)

Whatever injustice and hardship the French may have felt with regard to the way Joubert reffed the game, there's no excuse for Rougerie doing that so surely the IRB can't let that sort of thing go unpunished?

Maybe they will? Would any of us really be that surprised if Rougerie got off scot-free? As long as France cough their fine for encroaching on The Haka I suppose the IRB will be OK with things just the way they are.....

Way to go ya bunch of shiney-assed desk-jockeys.

Just to be clear its a 12 weeker with 4to6 suspended due to players previous.

DOD wrote:Just to be clear its a 12 weeker with 4to6 suspended due to players previous.

I think the opportunity is gone though DOD, but if it weren't I'd go for 8 weeks with the third off for previous good behaviour.

Well the time limit has passed so unless there's other rules that says he can be charged thats the end of it.

McCaw said he viewed the footage and didnt want to pursue it, primarily so as to not taint the event or celebrations.

Taylorman wrote:Well the time limit has passed so unless there's other rules that says he can be charged thats the end of it.

McCaw said he viewed the footage and didnt want to pursue it, primarily so as to not taint the event or celebrations.

Yeah, well he just won a world cup final T'man so on a scale of 1-10 he probably rates Rougerie's offence somewhere round a 2.5, I reckon it's a strong 7 and should be sorted, but it wont be as that would rely on the IRB having enough neurones amongst them to fire up a synapse.

This is the same clip with better quality below.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/5851214/McCaw-plays-down-eye-gouge-as-footage-released

Taylorman wrote:Well the time limit has passed so unless there's other rules that says he can be charged thats the end of it.

McCaw said he viewed the footage and didnt want to pursue it, primarily so as to not taint the event or celebrations.

seen it and its blatant and i think it is semantics as to whether it is a gouge or raking the latter suggesting a lesser assault and equally is less emotive. To me a player having any contact with the face area in this way is a disgrace and should be banned for a season at least, there should be no consideration of the impact on the player , just the action of the perp. There is NO PLACE for this in rugby and it must be dealt with disproportionately harshly to eradicate it. I am sorry to say i think we will see a ban for the hand off as par to f a push by the IRB to remove the players face from the game

As for Quinn, his disgraceful besmirching of TD is the press at their very worst, he taints the award by indicting that even if he didnt do it he was nearby and didnt offer concern or consolation...not sure the guy ever pulled on a shirt but uf he ever offered concern or consolation to an opp forward in a ruck i would be surprised.

As for McCaw, leads with the hand but he is a fetching 7 and in my view he doesn't try and knee Parra in the head, these things happen. Cynically one might argue that he doesn't draw attention to the Rougerie incident so that his own infraction is not investigated but i like to think it is because he ahs more pressing things on his mind!

Taylorman wrote:Well the time limit has passed so unless there's other rules that says he can be charged thats the end of it.

McCaw said he viewed the footage and didnt want to pursue it, primarily so as to not taint the event or celebrations.

Yet the article states that a source close to the NZ team alerted the articles author about the incident. Who was this source and how close to the team was he: a friend, Joubert (joke), management, McCaws agent? I wouldn't be surprised if the NZ camp leaked the story themselves because no one noticed it during the match. Even though later footage you can see McCaw himself immediately pointed out the cut to his eye to the referee. He seemed to want Joubert to know about it at that point.

leinsterbaby wrote:Tell me when was the last time Leinster tried to sign a big name player? Why would you sign McCaw when we have good young Irish players in that position. What would be the point. It would be stupid. Leinster were until recently operating at a loss. The only clubs that could afford him are French clubs. Are you sure you support Leinster?

Leinster do not sign expensive mercenaries we develop our own.

Leinsterbaby... only back online now. Just to clarify (for a second time): I was joking about the McCaw thing! I'm frankly confused that you see the need to respond with two serious descriptions of Leinster's recruitment policies when the original comment was clearly a one-line quip about a player who is not now or ever will be in the running for Leinster.

So its bad when a french gouges a kiwi.

But it is ok for a kiwi to0 knee a french man in the head.

A bit biased arent we.

Of course i am not saying that Gougeing is ok.

But i have always thought that they was both illegal, but one gets talk about on NZ radio and the other one does not.

Warburton gets a red card and a ban for a big hit (albeit a slightly clumsy one) on a French player.

French player gets away with trying to rip McCaw's face open.

Farce.

Maj/Casar


there is no equivocation with gouging - no reason to be near the eyes. knees to the head? you play...you get kneed in the head, goes with the territory, prove intent if you can but not in this instance.

as for warbs v rougerie incidents, frankly laughable. One is a bad tackle dealt with by the ref within the law cos he saw it, the other an attempt to 'interrupt' the eyes not seen by the ref.

On issue though: does the IRB have a responsibility to the game to deal with it irrespective of a complaint

and how shoudl Quinn be dealt with regards his false guilt by association story

Casartelli wrote:Warburton gets a red card and a ban for a big hit (albeit a slightly clumsy one) on a French player.

French player gets away with trying to rip McCaw's face open.

Farce.

McCaw gets away with trying to knock a french player unconcious.

France play garbage all tournament and produce one decent display, NZ play really well all tournament but freeze in the final, they win through via some poor reffing and NZ radio, press, TV need a diversion...... thanks Aurélien

It's all bollix really, the most important point to all of the above, is that Rougerie gets off scot-free and that's not good for the game.

majesticimperialman wrote:

Casartelli wrote:Warburton gets a red card and a ban for a big hit (albeit a slightly clumsy one) on a French player.

French player gets away with trying to rip McCaw's face open.

Farce.

McCaw gets away with trying to knock a french player unconcious.

Interesting point - but even if you deliberately knee someone in the head you only risk knocking them out.

If you gouge someone you risk blinding them.

So while your point is interesting, it is not particularly enlightened or intelligent.

gauging is nasty sick- but if you knee someone in the head you could probally do more than knock them out- although gauging is much more nasty, still both should be red card offences, but gauging shouold face a long ban on top

Casartelli wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:

Casartelli wrote:Warburton gets a red card and a ban for a big hit (albeit a slightly clumsy one) on a French player.

French player gets away with trying to rip McCaw's face open.

Farce.

McCaw gets away with trying to knock a french player unconcious.

Interesting point - but even if you deliberately knee someone in the head you only risk knocking them out.

If you gouge someone you risk blinding them.

So while your point is interesting, it is not particularly enlightened or intelligent.

Lifting someone in the tackle meaning they fall on their neck/head can do an awful lot of damage too. That's why tip/spear tackling is punishable by a red card/ban.

It's all bollix really, the most important point to all of the above, is that Rougerie gets off scot-free and that's not good for the game..

And what about McCaw's knee to Paras head. I suppose that doesnt count, right.

majesticimperialman wrote:It's all bollix really, the most important point to all of the above, is that Rougerie gets off scot-free and that's not good for the game..

And what about McCaw's knee to Paras head. I suppose that doesnt count, right.

neither is good but really the knee should not be considered in the same context as it sems to be.

I have had more head injuries from knees feet and elbows than i care to remember, my heed is so criss crossed with rugby scars it looks like a map of every flight around the globe that ever took off. I love them all, scars of battle

I have been gouged once and my reaction lead to my sending off and no action against the perp.

The appalling thing about the Parra incident was Joubert not halting the game for a serious head injury. Although later he did penalise France for Poux getting a bang on the head. Interesting that if you are French and get injured your team gets penalised.

majesticimperialman wrote:It's all bollix really, the most important point to all of the above, is that Rougerie gets off scot-free and that's not good for the game..

And what about McCaw's knee to Paras head. I suppose that doesnt count, right.

Yep, that's pretty much it.

DOD wrote:The appalling thing about the Parra incident was Joubert not halting the game for a serious head injury. Although later he did penalise France for Poux getting a bang on the head. Interesting that if you are French and get injured your team gets penalised.

Now that i agree about. Parra, the 10 gets knocked into RWC 2015 and the game shoudl have been stopped.

Mas, the prop who played for napoleon's select XV is injured at a lineout, goes dwon and gets pinged by the dreadful stereotyping ref (think that is the one you are referring to?)

Thought it was Poux. He was behind play getting treatment and given the importance of props to the lineout in terms of lifting the french were waiting not once did Joubert warn them and then gave the free kick.

The interesting thing to note about the whole game was the conscious effort by the french not to once question joubert. It was only in the last 15 when it was getting completely rediculous do you see Yachvilli getting a bit animated.

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

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on the headbut but the eye gouge is clear.

Well a French speaking ref, say Alain Redland, might have enabled better communication from France...wonder why he didn't get the game

chewed_mintie wrote:

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

I presume Mealamu and Umaga are now forever known as "spear tacklers" ?

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

Have you got any clear proof of that ?

what was quinns thoughts about mealamu and umagas assault on o driscoll? other than arrogant new zealanders pretending nothing happened, I can't recollect much concern.

Looked like he was wrenching McCaw's head back by his nostrils to me, his fingers would obviously have come into contact with the eye area as well as a consequence, which is a bannable offence.

skiddy wrote:what was quinns thoughts about mealamu and umagas assault on o driscoll? other than arrogant new zealanders pretending nothing happened, I can't recollect much concern.

I just watched the video quite a number of times.

The first comment the commentator was about a headbutt. The only thing near Rougerie's head was someone else's posterior. So, is it a crime against the Laws to headbutt someone's butt?

Secondly, and more seriously, was the hands to McCaws face. No doubts about where the hands were. And that is dangerous. But, I didn't see them stop by McCaw's eyes and it just doesn't appear to me to be a gouge. Certainly nothing like when Burger did his bit against the Lions and his fingers were drilling about for a while. Not saying this was clean, but I don't see a gouge. Maybe it's just me, though.

It's interesting how people see different things. I have watched the clearest footage available several times and I see a headbutt aimed at McCaw (which is probably why he was slow to get up) followed by a clear rack across the face. How much pressure was applied to the eye is hard to tell. Rougerie should be held accountable - disgusting behaviour.

How anyone can consider both actions anything but intentional is absurd, as is any comparison with the knee to Para's head which would always have a good case for accidental contact.

offload wrote:It's interesting how people see different things. I have watched the clearest footage available several times and I see a headbutt aimed at McCaw (which is probably why he was slow to get up) followed by a clear rack across the face. How much pressure was applied to the eye is hard to tell. Rougerie should be held accountable - disgusting behaviour.

How anyone can consider both actions anything but intentional is absurd, as is any comparison with the knee to Para's head which would always have a good case for accidental contact.

+1

England rugby fan wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:

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

I presume Mealamu and Umaga are now forever known as "spear tacklers" ?

As much as Warburton will be I guess

England rugby fan wrote:

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

Have you got any clear proof of that ?

clearly you don't know what I was writing this in response so I will enlighten you. One poster suggested that because the All Blacks were getting all the 50/50 calls and everything else, it was only natural that the French would start playing dirty. Hence my response. Clear? Good.

doctor_grey wrote:I just watched the video quite a number of times.

The first comment the commentator was about a headbutt. The only thing near Rougerie's head was someone else's posterior. So, is it a crime against the Laws to headbutt someone's butt?

Secondly, and more seriously, was the hands to McCaws face. No doubts about where the hands were. And that is dangerous. But, I didn't see them stop by McCaw's eyes and it just doesn't appear to me to be a gouge. Certainly nothing like when Burger did his bit against the Lions and his fingers were drilling about for a while. Not saying this was clean, but I don't see a gouge. Maybe it's just me, though.

Grey,

Gouge is a very emotive word and one id reserve for clear deliberate actions where they eye is targetted and dug into with sustained force.
Like you what I see here is hard to call a certain gouge, but there is a clear rake across the face. The last few frames before it becomes obscured by the horizonatl leg clearly show a finger caught on the upper edge of mccaws eye socket. That is illeagal contact with the eye area, at best from reckless behavour ( grabbing at a prone opponents face). Its strong enough contact to pull up Mccaws head.
How much more contact there was with teh eyes we dont know, but the hands were on the face for a longer period.
It was visible on teh blurry footage, its pretty much unmissable on that. The contact occured. If youd call it a gouge or not is another thing, but had Mccaw complained then that wouldve been plenty to cite the french chap with a low end eye contact offence at best.
It is quite possible that he is an dirty eye gouging french thug, but the evidence isnt 100% certain on that.
This was not the same as North accidentaly raking that French chap in the semi when handing him off, although that could have been cited too.

Again its irrelevant to this case what Mccaw did earlier in the game, if he was on the wrong side, and if a new zealander once tried to murder BOD. I have no problem with calling New Zealand sore winners and their media coverage emabressing at times but that doenst mean Mccaw wasnt gouged.

England rugby fan wrote:

I presume Mealamu and Umaga are now forever known as "spear tacklers" ?

I thought they already were.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:I have no problem with calling New Zealand sore winners.

NZ sore winners? NZ'ers have copped nothing on this forum but bitterness since they won a well deserved world cup. They've not had a chance to be sore winners because people have decided to create conspiracies out of thin air and mar what should be a great day for Kiwi's.

I'm not a New Zealander, but the spirit of some posters since Sunday has been below low. To now call them "Sore Winners" is a level too far. How about we let Kiwi's enjoy the moment, or are we all too obsessed with bringing down the successful?

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:NZ'ers have copped nothing on this forum but bitterness since they won a well deserved world cup.

I love the smell of a sweeping generalisation in the morning.

greybeard wrote:

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:NZ'ers have copped nothing on this forum but bitterness since they won a well deserved world cup.

I love the smell of a sweeping generalisation in the morning.

Granted it was sweeping, and apologies to those who don't fall into this bracket, but the positive comments were few and far between.

I agree AFewTooManyKnocks. I don´t seem to recall posts from Kiwis titled Choke on that! And it´s true greybeard that some fans have been sticking up for the ABs. What´s for sure is this World Cup has thrown up a lot of controversy.

The main feeling from Kiwis was relief after the match. We finally experienced a win after 24 years of waiting. That we did so in less than convincing fashion is regardless. If we had won by 20, then people would´ve said the French were the most undeserving finalists. We win and we´re still chokers apparently and the ref handed the game to us. People talk about Kaino´s high tackle but not much talk of Dusatoir stamping on a player when the ball had already come out on the AB side. I´m not saying one is worse than the other or certain decisions didn´t go our own way but we didn´t get all the 50/50 calls. Cory Jane was deemed to have put a foot into touch and the replay showed he wasn´t. Things get missed. I´m willing to concede we got the rub of the green but we didn´t in 2007. I had no problem accepting France beat us fair and square. When things aren´t going your own way, you have to adapt. Instead of waiting for a penalty to happen, we should´ve got ourselves into a position for a drop goal.

I wrote a post before the match on Sunday saying that talk of a runaway victory was nonsense. That view was dismissed by a few neutral supporters. After the match, I wrote a post saying how happy I was for the AB players and what the game meant to players who had previously played for the ABs.

I don´t have a problem with people wanting the favourite to lose. From what I gather, the OP is not a Kiwi poster but suddenly Kiwi posters are deemed to have brought this up. It´s a NZ paper but there´s only so much you can write about parades. I think if this incident happened anywhere else it would be deemed newsworthy. I don´t expect people to be over the moon that the ABs won. I can even accept them saying France was unlucky not to win. But what I do have a problem with is the view that Parra´s knock to the head justifies Rougerrie´s rake or gouge or whatever you want to call it. They say love is blindness. Well the same applies to hate. Sometimes you have to take a step back.

Good write kia

I think most posters agree that the All Blacks are the best team in the world and have been for a very long time, and deserved to win the competition, being easily the best team on performances.

In the final they got the rub of the green from Joubert, but by the standards of truly bad reffing, it was no big deal at all. SA vs Oz was far, far worse and also contained a controversial forward pass call which decided the match. In the Oz vs. Wales match we scored a try from a pass that was yards forward.

Got no problem with McCaw, an awesome player who any sensible team would love to have on board.

What was interesting, however, was that in the final the All Blacks did in fact choke. They were second best for long stretches of the game and squeaked the victory by a single point. Seeing Weepu boot the ball into touch to get to half-time was a shock. This was against a far-from-classic French team they had thumped in the pool game.

Has the gap between SH and NH eally shrunk that much? Or are the A-Bs psychologically more fragile than supposed?

samuraidragon wrote:I think most posters agree that the All Blacks are the best team in the world and have been for a very long time, and deserved to win the competition, being easily the best team on performances.

In the final they got the rub of the green from Joubert, but by the standards of truly bad reffing, it was no big deal at all. SA vs Oz was far, far worse and also contained a controversial forward pass call which decided the match. In the Oz vs. Wales match we scored a try from a pass that was yards forward.

Got no problem with McCaw, an awesome player who any sensible team would love to have on board.

What was interesting, however, was that in the final the All Blacks did in fact choke. They were second best for long stretches of the game and squeaked the victory by a single point. Seeing Weepu boot the ball into touch to get to half-time was a shock. This was against a far-from-classic French team they had thumped in the pool game.

Has the gap between SH and NH eally shrunk that much? Or are the A-Bs psychologically more fragile than supposed?

I think the pressure of being at home, and the weight of "choking" weighed them down. To be honest now that the monkey has been removed from the back they'll be a different beast next World Cup.

samuraidragon wrote:What was interesting, however, was that in the final the All Blacks did in fact choke.

Leaves everyone else with massive problems if we can choke but still win.....everyone else will have to focus on trying to beat us rather than waiting for us to choke now that it doens't produce the same outcomes it used to!

samuraidragon wrote:
What was interesting, however, was that in the final the All Blacks did in fact choke.

I think that is an interesting point, it's a term that can be levelled at a few winners though.

1991 Aus were almost beaten by Eng in the final. England were hammering them up front, but they insisted on trying to use their 'superior' backline. Of course the Campese 'intercept', was a big talking point.

2003 Eng, best team in the world, beaten SH opposition 14(?) times on the bounce. Needed ET DG to win it.

2007 SA hammered England in the pools, but just scraped home in the final.


In a close game, if lose, you choke. If you win, you grind it out.

2009, Ireland won a grand slam, but only because Wales missed a kick.

So winning the game was actually out of their hands. If the kick had gone over they would have been labelled chokers once more, but they had no say in whether the kick went over or not, so in effect, regardless of the result, that makes them chokers. GS winners and chokers.

This is why I have no time for the 'chokers' tag. It's ridiculous. And it conveniently ignores the other 15 men on the pitch.