Owen Williams making contact with the eyes

Bit of a surprise, he's been banned for 6 weeks for "making contact with the eye area" during the SaintsvTigers play off.

Got to say I don't remember anything at the time.

http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/story/227241.html

We should probably not editorialise that title, "making contact with the eyes" is not the same as gouging. He definitely wouldn't get 6 weeks for gouging.

I think the lower end ban is up to 12 weeks - so 6 weeks says something about the severity of the incident. I didn't see any news about this ?

Stupid kid got what he deserves though and thrown his chance to tour.

Has anyone seen a clip of the incident? Pretty surprised he did it, perhaps just reckless rather then intentional?

It was contact with Burrel's eye area whislt in a pile on the floor apparently. So yeah, not gouging, possibly accidental - bit of a sensationalist headline

Sorry for the headline RDW.

Just out of interest, how can you get a 6 week ban for making contact with the eye area, but it not be gouging? Surely it either is or it isn't? And then there's just different severity levels to the gouging. If he didn't gouge Burrell but got his hands close accidentally, then 6 weeks is OTT.

I'm not sure. Do you remember when Richie Rees was banned for 6 weeks for pushing Hartley (ha!) in the face but was charged with making contact with the eyes ?

All a bit daft really

yappysnap wrote:Has anyone seen a clip of the incident? Pretty surprised he did it, perhaps just reckless rather then intentional?

 No clip of the incident from what I can tell.

6 weeks is consistent with putting your hands in someone's face and unintentionally contacting the eyes. So the hand to face must be deliberate and the contact not deliberate. Generally considered due to reckless play rather than deliberate attempt to gouge. Most bans fall into this area and most are reported as 'gouging', which is wrong.

munkian wrote:I'm not sure. Do you remember when Richie Rees was banned for 6 weeks for pushing Hartley (ha!) in the face but was charged with making contact with the eyes ?

All a bit daft really

I though he reached around from behind Hartley, grabbed his face and pulled back, with his fingers contacting the eye area.

Pretty standard and since that period (where there seemed to be quite few such incidents) there don't seem to be as many so perhaps players do learn. So they've learnt, don't put your hands in people faces could you could get banned for more than a month. It's like the tip tackles now, if you go low and lift there's a good chance you get a yellow so don't even try it.

6 weeks seems excessive then for accidental eye contact with no damage done

It's not accidental, it's unintentional. Different categories. One is where it happened due to no fault of your own and the other is if it happened because of you actions.

Most players have learnt not to stick their hands in people faces.

munkian wrote:6 weeks seems excessive then for accidental eye contact with no damage done

I think the IRB recommends 12-156 for making contact with the eyes. Clearly it has been judged as accidental (EDIT: or unintentional as above) but reckless (hands shouldn't be in the face area), and halved for the guilty plea. So really looks like a minimum sentence.

I thought the Rees incident was ridiculous myself. Hartley had been a scrote all game (shocker) got in people's faces and wound them up and then had the audacity to complain about Rees lashing back at him. Coming from a bloke that actually gouged someone it was ridiculous

I'd wish the judge's panel would share footage if nothing was seen at the time

It said in the Western Mail that he admitted the offence. From what I saw on the clip, it was a silly little swipe into the face, not a big deal, but right that he should be brought to book for it. Hope he learns his lesson.

HammerofThunor wrote:It's not accidental, it's unintentional. Different categories. One is where it happened due to no fault of your own and the other is if it happened because of you actions.

Most players have learnt not to stick their hands in people faces.

What about a hand-off, to the face/chin for example?

munkian wrote:I thought the Rees incident was ridiculous myself. Hartley had been a scrote all game (shocker) got in people's faces and wound them up and then had the audacity to complain about Rees lashing back at him. Coming from a bloke that actually gouged someone it was ridiculous

I'd wish the judge's panel would share footage if nothing was seen at the time

Ah - the Harris defense 's/he was asking for it'

He was asking for more than a push to the face...

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:It's not accidental, it's unintentional. Different categories. One is where it happened due to no fault of your own and the other is if it happened because of you actions.

Most players have learnt not to stick their hands in people faces.

What about a hand-off, to the face/chin for example?

Here's a 78 week ban for a 'reckless' hand off that blinded someone. It was upgraded to 5 years after it was deemed deliberate when appealled.

http://www.whitehavennews.co.uk/news/callum-fights-five-year-rfu-ban-1.736597

Here's the link to the four reports on the FRU website (Callum Jennings).  

http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/judgements/judgements2009-2010/judgementsoffence/contact-with-eyes

First one was stating the player was banned while a police investigation occured.  Send was for the actual hearing where they deemed he had performed a reckless hand off (hand at 45° rather than 90°) and banned him for 78 weeks.  Third (1st appeal) found that infact it wasn't the fingers that had caused the injury but the palm near the thumb which had ruptured the eye ball.  They put in a submission to the RFU for recommendation.  It came back that it was a 'strike' to the face and deemed it a 5 year ban because they didn't believe Jennings had intended to injury.

What is it with people called Callum eh ?

It's the whole "reckless" part of the charge. Makes it near impossible for the player to launch a defence. Tigers kicked off last time this happened a few years ago with Mickey Young. As far as they were concerned he was innocent but he ended up with an 8 week ban even after appeal.

I think this citing wad after a Saints complaint though it was delayed a week amid rumours of limited evidence. It was allegedly Burrell who clearly has no mark on his face at the end of the game.

Saints love citing Welsh players   

After seeing the footage I think 6 weeks is harsh considering it didn't seem that he purposefully made contact with the face, let alone the eyes. Still, in today's game any contact with the face is dodgy territory, so he has to accept the ban.

Like most people have said above, I hope he learns from it. Even if the lesson is just learning to be more self-aware.

bluestonevedder wrote:After seeing the footage I think 6 weeks is harsh

As above, I'm pretty sure it's the minimum.

Scottrf wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:After seeing the footage I think 6 weeks is harsh

As above, I'm pretty sure it's the minimum.

Ah, sorry, didn't see that.   

If you compare it to the Ed O'Donoghue vs. Higgenbotham incident that was in the news recently, it seems a little unfair that Williams has been banned for making what appears to be pretty unintentional contact, whereas Ed O'Donoghue made purposeful contact with the face during a scuffle.

Just a little inconsistent. But maybe the separate judicial bodies see it differently.

From the footage I've seen (live during the game in normal time) it's hard to make out whether there was any genuine malicious intent. There's no reason or excuse for hands and fingers to be lingering around the facial area. Burrell was down and Williams in a standing position, not in a particularly awkward position and seemingly in control of his physical actions and movements. I don't know whether his hands were caught in the ruck or if he couldn't see where he was putting them.

I hope he isn't shown to be a hothead i.e. Liam Williams

Tigers top dogs view on this..


 
"It is really unfortunate for Owen and, to my mind, shows up a flaw in the International Rugby Board's tariff system," Cohen told the Leicester Mercury.

"There can be no intent but there is still a 12-week low-end sanction for something deemed reckless.

"The consequence of that is very few players can afford to plead not guilty because they run the risk of losing significant mitigation.

"In Owen's case, if he had pleaded not guilty because he believed himself to be not guilty of any deliberate act, but was still found guilty, the likelihood is he would not have received any mitigation. As a result, he would have missed the start of the season.

"The system is flawed because it offers players in those circumstances such a poor choice."

Full article:

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Owen-Williams-ban-shows-flaw-disciplinary-says/story-21158898-detail/story.html

Pretty poor position to be in really. Unable to defend yourself because the wording of the charge makes it difficult to debate. Add to that if you do try and clear your name you are likely to get a ban twice the length.

Also annoying that the arch scum bag Clark had his ban run over the summer where no games were played whilst Williams has his offset against weekends in which there are games.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Full article:

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Owen-Williams-ban-shows-flaw-disciplinary-says/story-21158898-detail/story.html

Pretty poor position to be in really. Unable to defend yourself because the wording of the charge makes it difficult to debate. Add to that if you do try and clear your name you are likely to get a ban twice the length.

Also annoying that the arch scum bag Clark had his ban run over the summer where no games were played whilst Williams has his offset against weekends in which there are games.

Why/how is it different for the two??

Williams ban means he will miss 6 games. Clark had a 30 something week ban which meant be missed 9 AP games plus 3 pre season games. If Williams was allowed the same allocation he'd only miss the Wales tour and would be able to play in pre season.

Clark was in the England squad. Williams isn't in the Wales squad. So they considered the England tour for Clark and didn't consider the Wales tour for Williams.