Mark Cueto cited
+7
greybeard
theundisputedY2D2
RuggerRadge2611
Dominic Dicoco
Draigoch
R!skysports
Mad for Chelsea
11 posters
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Rugby Union
Page 1 of 1
Mark Cueto cited
English winger and Sale captain Mark Cueto has been cited for "making contact with the eye or eye area" of Northampton's Christian Day during last Saturday's Premiership match, BBC Sport reports.
If found guilty, he faces a minimum 12 week ban, which would put his world cup place in jeopardy, surely. IMO this would be very damaging to England's chances. While he hasn't been scoring for fun recently, Cueto has established himself as a very important part of the English team, he's been solid and consistent.
What about you, how hard do you think a potential ban would hit England's chances at the RWC?
If found guilty, he faces a minimum 12 week ban, which would put his world cup place in jeopardy, surely. IMO this would be very damaging to England's chances. While he hasn't been scoring for fun recently, Cueto has established himself as a very important part of the English team, he's been solid and consistent.
What about you, how hard do you think a potential ban would hit England's chances at the RWC?
Mad for Chelsea- Posts : 12103
Join date : 2011-02-11
Age : 36
Re: Mark Cueto cited
Just found this photo of the incident, and however much you can't always trust stills, etc. it doesn't look good does it?
Shame as Cueto has a pretty spotless disciplinary record I think, but if found guilty he deserves a hefty ban; Gouging has no place in rugby.
Shame as Cueto has a pretty spotless disciplinary record I think, but if found guilty he deserves a hefty ban; Gouging has no place in rugby.
Mad for Chelsea- Posts : 12103
Join date : 2011-02-11
Age : 36
Re: Mark Cueto cited
This is a huge shame if Cueto is found guilty. He's one of the cleanest players around, a real upstanding man of the game so this is hugely out of character. The pic doesn't sound good though, and when you consider the likes of Richie Rees got a 12 week ban for minimal contact then Cueto could find himself banned for a lot longer. Not sure what affect that would have on Englands RWC squad, not sure if the bad would last that long.
Guest- Guest
Re: Mark Cueto cited
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QYJII6Fh9s
Video is damming - long bad should be expected
Video is damming - long bad should be expected
R!skysports- Posts : 3667
Join date : 2011-03-17
Re: Mark Cueto cited
Just watched it - that's absolutely awful. No way that looks an accident to me, long ban for sure. Can't believe Healy's comments on it either. This is the sort of thing we need to eradicate form our game, not gloss over!
Guest- Guest
Re: Mark Cueto cited
Well looking at the evidence this is a top end offence which means a minimum ban of 24 weeks, so that's his world cup over. Does NOT look good at all...
Mad for Chelsea- Posts : 12103
Join date : 2011-02-11
Age : 36
Re: Mark Cueto cited
9 Flip weeks! Cannot understand this.
'However, Cueto had his ban reduced by 50 per cent for 'compelling mitigation'.
BULL SH*T. The RFU want him fit and firing by the world cup. I thought they were going to be harsh on gouges from now on?
'However, Cueto had his ban reduced by 50 per cent for 'compelling mitigation'.
BULL SH*T. The RFU want him fit and firing by the world cup. I thought they were going to be harsh on gouges from now on?
Draigoch- Posts : 304
Join date : 2011-03-04
Re: Mark Cueto cited
Just seen an article on this on the Beeb Draigoch. Utterly ridiculous decision. How can mitigation have a decision reduced by 50%?! This is completely the wrong message to send out. Others have commented on other message boards, but the disciplinary procedure needs to be looked out, neutral panels have to be considered for us to get any consistency in this.
Guest- Guest
Re: Mark Cueto cited
This really needs to be sorted out now. There have been two recent cases that show how serious eye injuries can be, with Gavin Quinell and the Gravesend RFC Player. The pictures and video showed a clear eye gouge. Its stinking. Should be nearer to a 2 year ban.
Dominic Dicoco- Posts : 238
Join date : 2011-04-08
Location : Merthyr
Re: Mark Cueto cited
This just makes a Mockery of the rules of the sport. Blatant fingers in the eye is for me a life time ban.
Accidents do happen in contact sports but deliberate eye contact should be punished harshly for everyone.
Accidents do happen in contact sports but deliberate eye contact should be punished harshly for everyone.
RuggerRadge2611- Posts : 7194
Join date : 2011-03-04
Age : 39
Location : The North, The REAL North (Beyond the Wall)
Re: Mark Cueto cited
Draigoch wrote: 9 Flip weeks! Cannot understand this.
'However, Cueto had his ban reduced by 50 per cent for 'compelling mitigation'.
BULL SH*T. The RFU want him fit and firing by the world cup. I thought they were going to be harsh on gouges from now on?
Any idea on what this compelling mitigation could be?
Reducing the ban by 50 PER CENT definitely seems fishy, especially in a World Cup year.
theundisputedY2D2- Posts : 4205
Join date : 2011-01-25
Age : 42
Location : Down By The Clyde, Near The SECC - You Can't Miss It!
Re: Mark Cueto cited
Simply put, the ban is so that Cueto can be part of the world cup build up. The mitigation will be that he has an unblemished record, he pleaded guilty, and the guy he gouged Day apparently said he didn't feel anything around the eye area. Also this happened in a stand up "fight" which IMO makes it slightly less bad than in a ruck where the other guy can't defend himself.
Looking into it more carefully they're two things. First the ban was originally 18 weeks for a middle-scale offense which I would say is fair enough. However, HALVING the ban is ridiculous and is purely so that he can play in the WC (much as some Munster player I think got his ban ended about a day before a H Cup QF or something).
They have been a few inconsistencies with bans like this over the years and this isn't the worst IMO (that would be Burger - SEVEN weeks with his record was a joke). Is it time for an independent citing committee?
Looking into it more carefully they're two things. First the ban was originally 18 weeks for a middle-scale offense which I would say is fair enough. However, HALVING the ban is ridiculous and is purely so that he can play in the WC (much as some Munster player I think got his ban ended about a day before a H Cup QF or something).
They have been a few inconsistencies with bans like this over the years and this isn't the worst IMO (that would be Burger - SEVEN weeks with his record was a joke). Is it time for an independent citing committee?
Mad for Chelsea- Posts : 12103
Join date : 2011-02-11
Age : 36
Re: Mark Cueto cited
[quote=Is it time for an independent citing committee?[/quote]
Definately. There are so many inconsistencies and everyone's getting frustrated by it. The French players have seemed to have the worst of it.
Definately. There are so many inconsistencies and everyone's getting frustrated by it. The French players have seemed to have the worst of it.
Dominic Dicoco- Posts : 238
Join date : 2011-04-08
Location : Merthyr
Re: Mark Cueto cited
even the 18 week ban still would have seen him play in the WC, he jsut wouldn't have been able to participate in the warm up matches.
And yes there is a huge need now for an independent citing committee. Too many times now have decisions on such series offences been reduced, and they really shouldn't be. I look forward to reading the report of the RFU to find out exactly what the mitigating circumstances are.
And yes there is a huge need now for an independent citing committee. Too many times now have decisions on such series offences been reduced, and they really shouldn't be. I look forward to reading the report of the RFU to find out exactly what the mitigating circumstances are.
Guest- Guest
Re: Mark Cueto cited
I honestly can't believe the decision here! I mean, look at this picture -
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/11/article-0-0B95518E00000578-9_634x426.jpg
No way is that 9 weeks!
I've no problem with it being a RFU decision but as he will be playing in an IRB competition soon then perhaps the IRB should have a panel to review this of their own accord?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/11/article-0-0B95518E00000578-9_634x426.jpg
No way is that 9 weeks!
I've no problem with it being a RFU decision but as he will be playing in an IRB competition soon then perhaps the IRB should have a panel to review this of their own accord?
Draigoch- Posts : 304
Join date : 2011-03-04
Re: Mark Cueto cited
Whether or not he would have played in the world cup, 18 weeks would have been fair IMO, it's not a top level offence, and 18 is your mid-level offence ban in this case.
The problem is the mitigating which reduce the ban by HALF, I'd like to know what these were.
Draigoch, I don't think the IRB can get involved as it wasn't an IRB competition, regardless of whether there's a WC approaching.
The problem is the mitigating which reduce the ban by HALF, I'd like to know what these were.
Draigoch, I don't think the IRB can get involved as it wasn't an IRB competition, regardless of whether there's a WC approaching.
Mad for Chelsea- Posts : 12103
Join date : 2011-02-11
Age : 36
Re: Mark Cueto cited
MFC - I agree, I think 18 weeks would have been about right. Was just pointing out that whether the ban was reduced or not it would have had no bearing on Cueto's involvement in the WC.
RFU still haven't published the report on it yet. Really am intreagued about what it's going to say.
RFU still haven't published the report on it yet. Really am intreagued about what it's going to say.
Guest- Guest
Re: Mark Cueto cited
There's clear contact between finger and eye and if this isn't the top end what is? Causing blindness?
Personally i think it's similar in terms of contact to this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9aKZIh2CHc) and Dupuy got 24 weeks for. It obviously less premeditated than that, and such the ban should not be as harsh. But 9 compared to 24?
Personally i think it's similar in terms of contact to this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9aKZIh2CHc) and Dupuy got 24 weeks for. It obviously less premeditated than that, and such the ban should not be as harsh. But 9 compared to 24?
Draigoch- Posts : 304
Join date : 2011-03-04
Re: Mark Cueto cited
Draigoch, IMO two things mean this isn't top end:
1) no premeditation (different from Dupuy)
2) it's in a brawl rather than in a ruck, so the opposite number isn't defenseless (different from Burger on Fitzgerald or Attoub)
I'm not excusing Cueto, and have already stated above that a ban of 18 weeks would have been about right IMO...
1) no premeditation (different from Dupuy)
2) it's in a brawl rather than in a ruck, so the opposite number isn't defenseless (different from Burger on Fitzgerald or Attoub)
I'm not excusing Cueto, and have already stated above that a ban of 18 weeks would have been about right IMO...
Mad for Chelsea- Posts : 12103
Join date : 2011-02-11
Age : 36
Re: Mark Cueto cited
Fair enough Mad. 18 weeks it should have been though...
Draigoch- Posts : 304
Join date : 2011-03-04
Re: Mark Cueto cited
This is a press release from the iRB on 1st July 2009.
So do something iRB, overrule the RFU if you want to be taken seriously.
The International Rugby Board has announced that it is investigating measures to ensure that the illegal act of eye gouging is eradicated from the Game.
The IRB is firmly of the view that there is no place in Rugby for illegal or foul play and the act of eye gouging is particularly heinous.
In light of recent high profile cases, the IRB is launching a review of the existing disciplinary sanction structure relating to contact with the eye or eye area in order to send out the strongest possible message that such acts of illegal or foul play will not be tolerated, and have no place in a Game that has at its core the pillars of fair play, respect and camaraderie.
The IRB has also written to the Chairman of the IRB Judicial Panel to underscore its concerns regarding all incidents of eye gouging and a memorandum will be issued to all Independent Judicial Officers reinforcing the IRB's disciplinary policy.
Under existing IRB Disciplinary Regulations only the player may appeal independent judicial decisions. In light of recent cases, the IRB will review whether the scope of the appeal should in the future extend to other appropriate parties, including the IRB itself.
The IRB works tirelessly with all 116 Member Unions and key stakeholders to ensure that the safety of players and the reputation of the Game is protected.
So do something iRB, overrule the RFU if you want to be taken seriously.
greybeard- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2011-03-19
Re: Mark Cueto cited
If I remember rightly, Quinlan only got 12 weeks for (in my opinion) a worse incident. If you push at someone quickly your hand will look like a "claw like shape". This is the natural shape your hand assumes - hold yours infront of you and see. The fact that you don't have your fingers held stiffly in this position is not something you can tell from a photo or video.
I think the RFU have applied common sense to be honest. The ban for eye gouging of 18 weeks should be a ban for gouging - that is sticking your fingers into someones eye socket in a deliberate attempt to injure, not for shoving someone in the face and happening to make contact with the eyes. Obviously the worst cases should have up to a life ban (e.g. Quinell being blinded). 9 weeks is still a fairly hefty ban though - and rightly so, as although it wasn't in my view a "gouge", it was contact with the eyes which means it needs punishment to be handed out.
Do you honestly think that Cueto was going for the eyes? Personally I don't.
I think the RFU have applied common sense to be honest. The ban for eye gouging of 18 weeks should be a ban for gouging - that is sticking your fingers into someones eye socket in a deliberate attempt to injure, not for shoving someone in the face and happening to make contact with the eyes. Obviously the worst cases should have up to a life ban (e.g. Quinell being blinded). 9 weeks is still a fairly hefty ban though - and rightly so, as although it wasn't in my view a "gouge", it was contact with the eyes which means it needs punishment to be handed out.
Do you honestly think that Cueto was going for the eyes? Personally I don't.
screamingaddabs- Posts : 999
Join date : 2011-02-23
Age : 39
Location : Glasgow and Edinburgh (Work and Home)
Re: Mark Cueto cited
screamingaddabs, the IRB toughened up the penalties after Quinlan, Burger and Parisse's offences - because all 3 got off lightly.
I don't believe Cueto was going for the eyes, however "not going for them" is different to "making damn sure to not get anywhere near them" that IMO should be players' attitudes. 9 weeks, including 4 weeks of off-season, is a joke.
Note that I have no problem with his past good record and Day's testimony being take into account for mitigation. I just feel that (especially given that the ban crosses the off-season) he should have finished up with a 12-14 week ban.
I don't believe Cueto was going for the eyes, however "not going for them" is different to "making damn sure to not get anywhere near them" that IMO should be players' attitudes. 9 weeks, including 4 weeks of off-season, is a joke.
Note that I have no problem with his past good record and Day's testimony being take into account for mitigation. I just feel that (especially given that the ban crosses the off-season) he should have finished up with a 12-14 week ban.
Pete C (Kiwireddevil)- Posts : 10925
Join date : 2011-01-26
Location : London, England
Re: Mark Cueto cited
Kiwireddevil
I agree totally. If it ended up 9 games, rather than 3 or 4 games it would not seem so silly.
The video still makes me cringe!
I agree totally. If it ended up 9 games, rather than 3 or 4 games it would not seem so silly.
The video still makes me cringe!
R!skysports- Posts : 3667
Join date : 2011-03-17
Re: Mark Cueto cited
Fair enough, I didn't realise the new directive was after Quinlan's offence. I still feel that Cueto was not trying in any way to go for the eyes, however, given the facts that you've pointed out I tend to now agree with you, 12 to 14 seems about right.
Perhaps a pertinent question now is whether bans should be as a length of time or as a number of games. I suppose the problem with number of games comes in when a player is injured. Should the ban include games he wasn't available for anyway? The advantage is that "crimes" nearer the end of the season would have just as much of a punishment as those at the beginning or in the middle.
Perhaps a pertinent question now is whether bans should be as a length of time or as a number of games. I suppose the problem with number of games comes in when a player is injured. Should the ban include games he wasn't available for anyway? The advantage is that "crimes" nearer the end of the season would have just as much of a punishment as those at the beginning or in the middle.
screamingaddabs- Posts : 999
Join date : 2011-02-23
Age : 39
Location : Glasgow and Edinburgh (Work and Home)
Re: Mark Cueto cited
" I suppose the problem with number of games comes in when a player is injured"
The other problem with number of games (which is the reason why they switched to weeks) was clubs/players designating matches a banned player was never going to turn out in as matches towards the ban - e.g "A" side games (or in NZ, games for amateur club sides) etc
This season Ma'a Nonu had a 1 week ban (for getting a red card) extended to 3 weeks by the SXV judiciary as the match he'd have missed was cancelled (the Hurricanes vs Crusaders the weekend after the earthquake) while the following week was the 'Canes bye week, so he sat out the game after the bye.
In Cueto's case however, all the judiciary had to do was use common sense and take into account the weeks he was likely to not play due to games not being scheduled, and subtract those off the consideration reduction. And if the RFU was to appeal (which it won't ;-) ) they could have pointed this out and I dare the ban would have been lengthened
The other problem with number of games (which is the reason why they switched to weeks) was clubs/players designating matches a banned player was never going to turn out in as matches towards the ban - e.g "A" side games (or in NZ, games for amateur club sides) etc
This season Ma'a Nonu had a 1 week ban (for getting a red card) extended to 3 weeks by the SXV judiciary as the match he'd have missed was cancelled (the Hurricanes vs Crusaders the weekend after the earthquake) while the following week was the 'Canes bye week, so he sat out the game after the bye.
In Cueto's case however, all the judiciary had to do was use common sense and take into account the weeks he was likely to not play due to games not being scheduled, and subtract those off the consideration reduction. And if the RFU was to appeal (which it won't ;-) ) they could have pointed this out and I dare the ban would have been lengthened
Pete C (Kiwireddevil)- Posts : 10925
Join date : 2011-01-26
Location : London, England
Re: Mark Cueto cited
BBC Sport wrote:Northampton's Christian Day said he was not "gouged" by England wing Mark Cueto in written statements to a Rugby Football Union panel, it has emerged.
On Tuesday, Cueto was banned for nine weeks after pleading guilty to "making contact with the eye or eye area" of Day when playing for Sale on 2 April.
"I have had the unfortunate experience of being gouged before but this was not in any way similar," said lock Day.
"It was a pushing motion from an open hand, I felt no contact with my eye."
The RFU panel's written judgement of the hearing, released today, outlined two written statements made by Day.
In the second statement, when asked to comment on still photographs of the incident, Day added: "I understand that the photographic evidence appears damning, but that was not my recollection of the event.
"I can only describe what I felt at the time of a split-second occurrence. Pressure was not sustained into the eye socket.
"Instead, a 'pushing' motion was experienced consistent with a shove to the face. If a finger inadvertently entered my eye then it was, in my opinion, accidental and was certainly not my lasting memory of the event."
The panel were asked to consider written references, testimonials and letters of support for Cueto from England manager Martin Johnson, RFU rugby operations director Rob Andrew, Sale Sharks owner Brian Kennedy and Cueto's first club Altrincham Kersal.
The panel agreed Cueto's offence was "not committed intentionally or deliberately," although it had been reckless in that he knew there was a risk of committing an act of foul play.
Sale skipper Cueto admitted the charge, but a recommended punishment of 18 weeks for what the RFU panel deemed a mid-range offence was halved because of his remorse and good character.
In its judgement, the panel, chaired by Antony Davies, said: "We considered the substantial and compelling mitigating factors in this case, and particularly the written references.
"The player is clearly extremely well thought of at every level, from his continuing links with the amateur club where he started, through Sale Sharks and into the England playing and coaching squad.
"He is described as a model professional player who has always conducted himself in an exemplary fashion.
"The player has clearly understood the seriousness of the matter and its potential implications for his participation in the World Cup in New Zealand later in the year.
"He has faced up to what he has done and not sought to argue that it was purely accidental and to exculpate himself from any blame. He is clearly genuinely embarrassed and remorseful."
The relatively short sanction means the 31-year-old will be clear to play in the World Cup in September. Cueto, already banned by his club Sale, will be free to play on 7 June.
Cueto's ban was backdated to 4 April, the day he was handed a six-week internal suspension by Sale.
After sitting out the remainder of the domestic season, he will link up with England for their summer training camp on 20 June ahead of the August internationals against Wales, home and away, and Ireland.
The incident occurred during the Sharks' 53-24 Premiership defeat by Northampton when Cueto and Day, who are former Sale team-mates, scrapped off the ball in the build-up to the Sharks' second try.
Television replays showed Cueto's hand bent like a claw as it made contact with Day's face.
Cueto has scored 16 tries in 50 games for England since making his debut in 2004 and was a key player in their 2011 Six Nations success.
Northampton hooker Dylan Hartley missed the 2007 World Cup after he was banned for 26 weeks after being found guilty of a similar offence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/9457387.stm
Enforcer- Founder
- Posts : 3598
Join date : 2011-01-25
Age : 39
Location : Cardiff
Re: Mark Cueto cited
Rugby needs to clean up it's act on and off tge field.
Glas a du- Posts : 15843
Join date : 2011-04-28
Age : 48
Location : Ammanford
Similar topics
» Ugo Monye for Mark Cueto
» Mark Cueto 2007 World Cup Final disallowed try
» Lancaster Drops Mark Cueto, Nick Easter and Mike Tindall...!
» Cueto's salary cap comments
» Will Banahan & Cueto be scared of North?
» Mark Cueto 2007 World Cup Final disallowed try
» Lancaster Drops Mark Cueto, Nick Easter and Mike Tindall...!
» Cueto's salary cap comments
» Will Banahan & Cueto be scared of North?
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Rugby Union
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum