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

disneychilly wrote:I see where you're coming from Nos I do. But when you mention slanted interpretations it's hard to not draw comparisons with a certain other game in which we were on the wrong end. I really don't want to go into conspiracy theories as that opens up a whole new can of worms and I was sick of those four years ago, despite that appealing to my disappointment.

As Biltong mentioned the ruck leading to the French try could've been blown up which helped them points wise, and two French penalties were missed. France weren't good enough to take the refereeing out of the equation on the scoreboard just as we weren't good enough to do so in Cardiff.

I don't want a NZ lovefest, but I'm way over the conspiracy theories. In fact I wish Paddy O'Brien wasn't in his job because we wouldn't have to put up with ridiculous statement after ridiculous statement on his NZ/SH bias.

NZ deserving their victory and the French having as you say far beyond bad luck comes across as self-contradictory. I know it's a fine line. But I'm damned if anyone's going to make me feel guilty for celebrating.

I think I can see what you're getting at there Disney. Tis perhaps unreasonable to expect that there can be a reasonable discussion of such a contentious issue. And there will always be looneys who derail any attempts.

I wanted France to win because:

they were the better team on the day,
they deserved it more,
they have been in three finals and have never won,
they have provided more excitement then anyone else at world cups,
they have an incredible squad of players,
as usual are under rated and somethimes disrespected,
they were shafted by the ref.

I wanted NZ to lose because:

NZ get more concessions in world rugby than everyone else. A few examples:

France were fined for advancing too far at the Haka but NZ werent even though they also advanced further than agreed distance not just in final.

They were allowed wear their black jersey in the final because they probably would have cried or bouycotted the match oterwise.

They get reffed differently to other teams particularly McCAw,

an NZ player is never guilty of dirty play, just accidents from time to time,

they would have found someone else to blame other than themselves if they had lost as usual. Graham Henry would moan that there isnt enough running rugby in rugby and the game has gone boring and put pressure on the IRB to change the rules to suit NZ. Doubt he will be moaning now even if NZ played fairly ugly at times.

LB you sound like Neil Francis.

disneychilly wrote:LB you sound like Neil Francis.

Ah thanks. Wasnt expecting compliments.

LB you´re entitled to your opinion and certainly not going to ask you to change your mind.

I will say this. Posters like you have helped make our victory seem even sweeter. Here´s a hug and good luck with retaining your trophy with Leinster.

leinsterbaby wrote:

disneychilly wrote:LB you sound like Neil Francis.

Ah thanks. Wasnt expecting compliments.

You didn't get one.

LB,

Everyone of those points is pure garbage

It´s just amusing for me to imagine him typing this, consumed with hate. A guy walks by the window wearing black and I imagine he gets a brick thrown at him. An introduction to Joubert the ex Springbok fullback and he starts picking a fight with him because he shares the same name as the ref who shall not be named but will always be remembered.

It just tickles me...

i wanted France to win purely for financial reasons.

I backed SA at 9/1 £20 and France at 25/1 £20 at the start of the RWC, presuming they would both, or at least one of them would reach the final.

I though France deserved to win based on the final match alone, they were superior in every way to the AB and sadly were shafted by some poor/gutless refereeing!

Sorry to hear your windfall didn´t come through JDandfries. I suspect though your wishes were more than purely financial...

JDandfries wrote:I though France deserved to win based on the final match alone, they were superior in every way to the AB and sadly were shafted by some poor/gutless refereeing!

Except the one thing that counts, the scoreboard! Oh well, there's always next time hey JD, don't get too down old fruit!

chewed_mintie wrote:

JDandfries wrote:I though France deserved to win based on the final match alone, they were superior in every way to the AB and sadly were shafted by some poor/gutless refereeing!

Except the one thing that counts, the scoreboard! Oh well, there's always next time hey JD, don't get too down old fruit!

Mintie, you've had 6 consecutive attempts and 20 years to practise "oh well there's always next time" so I suppose it's only fair to pass it on.

offload wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:

JDandfries wrote:I though France deserved to win based on the final match alone, they were superior in every way to the AB and sadly were shafted by some poor/gutless refereeing!

Except the one thing that counts, the scoreboard! Oh well, there's always next time hey JD, don't get too down old fruit!

Mintie, you've had 6 consecutive attempts and 20 years to practise "oh well there's always next time" so I suppose it's only fair to pass it on.

And don't it feel good!!!!

Yes the relief is obvious.
Grant fox said it best.
"We just had to win this. Imagine another four years of going through all this again when now can just sit back and enjoy it and get on with playing the game"

we're going to have to put up with the ref jibes but hey... Bettter on this side of the fence.

And notice how the choking tag has suddenly lost all its energy. Some have even used it for winning. I mean...

2015 we can now look forward to being the first defenders and leap ahead in the winners stakes now we know how to win these.

We might even catch SAs % by then who knows.

Only good times ahead people...

I was watching Re-Union tonight and they showed the eyegouge, it is as clear as daylight that it was deliberate. In fact the worst I have yet seen. It makes you wonder what the citing commissioner was doing during and after the match.

Maybe it was the same citing commissioner for the BOD spear tackle and Burgers gouging?

biltongbek wrote:I was watching Re-Union tonight and they showed the eyegouge, it is as clear as daylight that it was deliberate. In fact the worst I have yet seen. It makes you wonder what the citing commissioner was doing during and after the match.

Yeah we saw that the other night when we posted it (when others were looking at the screwy imaged versions on youtube). Sickened me to see Mccaws face like that immediately after on the ground. Not a good way to end whats supposed to be the greatest moment in your career. To bad if McCaw didnt acknowledge the French if one of thems going to do that...

A lot of people of seem to think it isnt deliberate...guess its a question of interpretation.

No DOD, the possibility of being the same citing commissioner is zero. Burger was cited and banned

Yeah but someone was asleep in the subsequent inquiry. Burgers was worse than Rougerie..how much did he get 6 weeks? Then 3 for Rougerie.

biltong
Cheers, It makes schalk burger look like a saint, a couple of us Kiwis saw that footage,,and came on here about 10.30 last Tuesday night New Zealand time, i was livid, and flew off the handle at the Northern hemisphere posters who are of the opinion that it was wrong of the ABs not to acknowledge the French, trouble is the NH posters on here will probably never see the footage especially in HD like I did on a 46 inch LED.
The ABs did the right thing by not acknowledgeing the French after the game,and dismissing them in any questions when asked by jounos.
I fail to also understand why some people think that the ABs should have laid a complaint with the citing commissioner, they never have, its not the New Zealand way, however there have been plenty of instances where ABs have been cited post match, without the requirement of a red card or a complaint.
If the french ever ask why New Zealand are treating them in such an unsportsmanlike manner,and not even acknowledging there presence then they should direct that question to Mr Rougerie.

Laurie, you have a 46 inch HD TV, I am jealous, I have one of those tiny 40 inch HD TV`s, you win the world cup and have a bigger one. We get screwed and I have a smaller one. Man life just isn't fair.

DOD you are clearly bitter and one eyed. How on this beautiful green earth can you say Burger's was worse. You need to ask Bruce Lawrence if you can use his guide dog.

But you know what I take no Offence about Burger anymore. He has cleaned up his act, he is playing better rugby than ever before and has become a great distributor, so although I am disappointed that he was guilty of reckless behaviour, he has come out a better man for it, and for that I am very proud of him

Oh my its the world, sorry SH in union

The footage has been quite clear...the intent isnt certain...

I suppose some NZ'ers think the old BOD spear tackle where he could have been even more seriously injured than he was didnt deserve anything?...

also some people dont seem to understand the citing process where most teams dont make complaints...

I suppose given the ABs choked and needed Jouberts helping whistle (or lack thereof) then the relief was probably overwhelming and so they easily forgot to be gracious in victory. I suppose giving dues to the better team would be too hard...

Bilton it is not clear if the Rougerie incident is intended. Looking at it in real time I would argue it isnt and if anything looks less innocuous than Burger.

DOD, sorry mate you are biased. This is not about SH being in union either, I am still seething about that new zealander Bruce Lawrence. And was actually hoping france would win in the end.

You also forgot to metion Burgers attempted go at Pocock last year?

I posted in this thread earlier, after seeing the really clear footage. The headbutt and eye gouge was disgusting and needs to be dealt with. Using iffy ref decisions or any other arguments to defend this behaviour is not acceptable.

During the match I found myself supporting France, but that doesn't stop me applauding the NZ win and hoping that one Frenchman is forced to account for his actions.

Bitter,bitter,bitter

na na na na na...sticks and stones ...dod

McCaws brushed it off... so thats the important thing.

ab's once again set the standard in diplomacy while frustrating the heck out of others through playing a perfectly legal ability to play the rules to the wire better than anyone else.

Pity some have to resort to violence to make a point.

At least McCaws having the last laugh, and thats all that matters... on and up...

Now now i am just reciprocating mr lauries uncalled for attack..

Yes tana and keven didn't have to resort to erm, er violence...no sirree

I will leave you with your moral outrage

biltongbek wrote:I was watching Re-Union tonight and they showed the eyegouge, it is as clear as daylight that it was deliberate. In fact the worst I have yet seen. It makes you wonder what the citing commissioner was doing during and after the match.

+1 Altho Attoub's efforts on 1F will take some beating for Worst Gouge Ever award

aucklandlaurie wrote: biltong
Cheers, It makes schalk burger look like a saint, a couple of us Kiwis saw that footage,,and came on here about 10.30 last Tuesday night New Zealand time, i was livid, and flew off the handle at the Northern hemisphere posters who are of the opinion that it was wrong of the ABs not to acknowledge the French, trouble is the NH posters on here will probably never see the footage especially in HD like I did on a 46 inch LED.
The ABs did the right thing by not acknowledgeing the French after the game,and dismissing them in any questions when asked by jounos.

laurie, I suspect that you and I will never agree on this, but I'll put forward my alternative point of view again. The final was a great victory for the ABs, the best team in the RWC won, and you are deservedly champions. But I have and will continue to bring up my children to follow an ehtos that sees them acknowledge the opposition after any sporting occasion - the fact that RM didn't (and possible Dusautoir too, although of that I can't be certain) remains disappointing to me (whether you like it/understand it or not) - RM's beef was rightly with Rougerie, not the other 21 players, nor the country they represent.

aucklandlaurie wrote:I fail to also understand why some people think that the ABs should have laid a complaint with the citing commissioner, they never have, its not the New Zealand way, however there have been plenty of instances where ABs have been cited post match, without the requirement of a red card or a complaint.

It's a global game, and we don't want gougers in the game. It's the responsibility of every union to try and get rid of this (ma-)practice, and altho it might seem commendable in one sense that NZRU don't cite, this is one time where you could (and should have) do the rest of us a favour by complaining. Rougerie should be gone from the game for a min of 12 weeks (I don't subscribe to any of the stuff about intent or not, nor whether McCaw was lying in the wrong position, etc - all missing the point imo), but instead many NH club teams will now have to face a player that shouldn't be gracing the field over the next 3 months. Let us hope he doesn't strike again in that period.

aucklandlaurie wrote:If the french ever ask why New Zealand are treating them in such an unsportsmanlike manner,and not even acknowledging there presence then they should direct that question to Mr Rougerie.

See above

PS Thanks for the PM - appreciate it

Dusatoir thanked Richie McCaw in his player of the year award. Quality individual. Watched a replay of the match the guy was incredible, no lying on the ball, no coming in from side or hands in the ruck just pure clean brilliance. He doesn't need to cheat and he still out muscled RM.

Wrong team won.

leinsterbaby wrote:out muscled RM.

Pity he didn't out think him. Don't they say that at the peak of professional sport the difference is in the top 2 inches? I guess RM worked out the best way to get the job done on the day.

goneagain wrote:

leinsterbaby wrote:out muscled RM.

Pity he didn't out think him. Don't they say that at the peak of professional sport the difference is in the top 2 inches? I guess RM worked out the best way to get the job done on the day.

Wrong. McCaw deserves credit for playing through pain but he needed to be given a free ride by the ref to level the playing field. Stephen Donald made the crucial call to knock three points over even when his team mates including McCaw showed no faith in him.

leinsterbaby wrote:Dusatoir thanked Richie McCaw in his player of the year award. Quality individual. Watched a replay of the match the guy was incredible, no lying on the ball, no coming in from side or hands in the ruck just pure clean brilliance. He doesn't need to cheat and he still out muscled RM.

Wrong team won.

Leinster, on Re-Union, the panel admitted that France was the best team on the park that day, and they admitted they were relieved to win that match. now from where I am sitting these guys are usually as biased as they come, and for them to admit France were the better team on the pitch is a big step. Perhaps having won the trophy aided in their magnanymous approach, but by just admitting to the fact is big.

How many matches have you seen where the better team lost during this world cup.

Here are a few.

Scotland vs England.
Wales vs SA
SA vs Bruce, er I mean Australia.

It happens all the time mate.

biltongbek wrote:How many matches have you seen where the better team lost during this world cup.

Here are a few.

Scotland vs England.
Wales vs SA
SA vs Bruce, er I mean Australia.

It happens all the time mate.

biltong, I'd even be tempted to add Scotland vs Wayne BarnesArgentina to that list, but to be honest, in both those Scotland games, we just didn't do quite enough on our own

aucklandlaurie wrote:I fail to also understand why some people think that the ABs should have laid a complaint with the citing commissioner, they never have, its not the New Zealand way, however there have been plenty of instances where ABs have been cited post match, without the requirement of a red card or a complaint.

Thats a really good point Aukland. There are differing opinions on the "code" players have with regard to citings. Many in rugby feel that such things should be dealt with behind closed doors and without escalting the Holly Wilaboobie for tat war off the field.
Mccaw has spoken on this now. Hes been very honourable in what hes said. There was a hand in his eyes, but he couldnt tell how it happened or if it was dleiberate. That backs up what you can see on the video,.. Theres no question Rougeries hands went across his face inclduing the eyes. Theres no way Mccaw could tell who was doing it and how it happened.
It does look deliberate to me, but we can never really know.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:I fail to also understand why some people think that the ABs should have laid a complaint with the citing commissioner, they never have, its not the New Zealand way, however there have been plenty of instances where ABs have been cited post match, without the requirement of a red card or a complaint.

Thats a really good point Aukland. There are differing opinions on the "code" players have with regard to citings. Many in rugby feel that such things should be dealt with behind closed doors and without escalting the Holly Wilaboobie for tat war off the field.
Mccaw has spoken on this now. Hes been very honourable in what hes said. There was a hand in his eyes, but he couldnt tell how it happened or if it was dleiberate. That backs up what you can see on the video,.. Theres no question Rougeries hands went across his face inclduing the eyes. Theres no way Mccaw could tell who was doing it and how it happened.
It does look deliberate to me, but we can never really know.

It's not up to RM to determine intent or who did it. It is up to every responsible player and team to report foul play and help eradicate it. It's a poor excuse to say that it's not the "NZ way". Who gave NZ the right to abdicate the responsibility? It's clear to everyone that Rougerie should be investigated and NZ should have reported the incident so that it could be dealt with.

Offload, it is a lose lose situation.

If RM reported it, he would be seen by a whinger by many.
If he doesn't report it, he is seen as abdicating responsibility.

Catch 22.

biltongbek wrote:Offload, it is a lose lose situation.

If RM reported it, he would be seen by a whinger by many.
If he doesn't report it, he is seen as abdicating responsibility.

Catch 22.

If the captain of the World Champions lacks the courage to report an incident so that the authorities can determine if there was an offense, then that's very disappointing and sets a poor example.

Nobody would see McCaw as a whinger for reporting being gouged.

biltongbek wrote:

leinsterbaby wrote:Dusatoir thanked Richie McCaw in his player of the year award. Quality individual. Watched a replay of the match the guy was incredible, no lying on the ball, no coming in from side or hands in the ruck just pure clean brilliance. He doesn't need to cheat and he still out muscled RM.

Wrong team won.

Leinster, on Re-Union, the panel admitted that France was the best team on the park that day, and they admitted they were relieved to win that match. now from where I am sitting these guys are usually as biased as they come, and for them to admit France were the better team on the pitch is a big step. Perhaps having won the trophy aided in their magnanymous approach, but by just admitting to the fact is big.

How many matches have you seen where the better team lost during this world cup.

Here are a few.

Scotland vs England.
Wales vs SA
SA vs Bruce, er I mean Australia.

It happens all the time mate.

True but I feel France were robbed the most. Then to be fined for something NZ should be fined for too was a further slap to the face.

Biltong I'd say the entire AB team have abdicated that responsibility in the past. I think the biggest example was 99 when the French pasted us in the semi. They were squeezing pips, biting and gouging, and you could hear an AB say he was being bitten. Then Randell played dumb after the game. It must be drilled into them. I saw McCaw mouth the words 'I got gouged mate' to Joubert on Sunday too.

The spear tackle was a bloody reckless cleanout and both Umaga and Mealamu should have been banned for it. There was no malice in it I think-and I've seen that other footage.

Either way this crap should be stamped out.

biltongbek wrote:Offload, it is a lose lose situation.

If RM reported it, he would be seen by a whinger by many.
If he doesn't report it, he is seen as abdicating responsibility.

Catch 22.

He did report it though. He showed his eye to the ref immediately when he got up. The game was over at that point with only seconds left (I think). Then the journalist who reported the story said it came from a source close to the NZ camp. Given that the incident wasn't picked up on tv at the time only McCaw could have broken the story himself a least by telling someone else.

Not informing the citing commissioner is a kiwi pr exercise. Leaking the story to the press makes everyone feel sorry for poor Richie.

Not informing the citing commissioner is a kiwi pr exercise

Some clubs and nations just refuse to recomment incidents to the citing commissioner. For instance Tigers don't do it and I don't think Munster do it either. It's an old school, "what happens on the pitch, stays on the pitch" attitude. Of course that's not to say some of the players won't find the culprit at the next breakdown and shoe them but that's the nature of the game.

...or leak the story anyway.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Some clubs and nations just refuse to recomment incidents to the citing commissioner. For instance Tigers don't do it and I don't think Munster do it either. It's an old school, "what happens on the pitch, stays on the pitch" attitude. Of course that's not to say some of the players won't find the culprit at the next breakdown and shoe them but that's the nature of the game.

Sam,
Weren't we all raised with that mentality: "Rugby is self-policing. If you do me on this play, I will do you back, next play, next match, whenever". Supposedly kept things under control. And we all lived by it, and did what we felt we had to do.

But I think the posters are correct here. The amateur ethic of self-policing obviously does not work in today's world. Especially if we want to attract more fans to Rugby. So I think these incidents do need to be reported to the proper authorities. This does not mean a public lynching before incidents are adjucated. And potentially not even public unless a foul has been truly committed. Deliberate intent to harm is something we need to get out of the game. It is tough enough without needing to worry about our eyes.

disneychilly wrote:Biltong I'd say the entire AB team have abdicated that responsibility in the past. I think the biggest example was 99 when the French pasted us in the semi. They were squeezing pips, biting and gouging, and you could hear an AB say he was being bitten. Then Randell played dumb after the game. It must be drilled into them. I saw McCaw mouth the words 'I got gouged mate' to Joubert on Sunday too.

The spear tackle was a bloody reckless cleanout and both Umaga and Mealamu should have been banned for it. There was no malice in it I think-and I've seen that other footage.

Either way this crap should be stamped out.

That has to be the most one eyed view ever...No malice in two players picking one up flipping him over and driving him head first into the ground resulting in a shoulder injury that took a year to recover from (and everyone knows he was lucky it wasnt worse. Umaga and Mealamu shouldnt have been left on a rugby pitch again. In addition we all know how whiter than white NZ players are, its clear the big bad french did it to them in 99, 07 and now again...jeez grow a pair as someone said.

No it was reckless disregard for a player's safety. That's bad enough and as I said should have been worth a ban. As for Umaga never being let on a pitch again clearly you conveniently forgot him winning the Pierre de Coubertin medal for the Colin Charvis incident.

When did we say the NZ players were angels? We didn't. No team is angelic. But get off your high horse. Stop focusing on NZ being the big bad boy and worse than any other team just because they win more than anyone and grow a pair yourself.

In relation to Rougeries intent...here is a view from another IRish rugby player (ex) who is usually middle of the road

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2011/1028/1224306621292.html

Just to note a small section from this
"Although I support zero tolerance with any form of facial interference there is no way Rougerie intended it as he was unsighted as to McCaw’s body position and removed immediately"