Gouging is a heinous crime, and in a Rugby World Cup final with billions of people watching, it’s even worse.
With anything but consistency, we’ve seen all sorts of bans handed out for gouging, so it’s anyone’s guess what Rougerie will get for this – what do you think?
Have to say that from up here (france) we’re amazed by your press’s french bashing which has gone on all during WC. This is not for sure what we call hopitality… France has allways admired the all blacks, and we all know that they deserved the WC. But for those who can’t remember, in 2007 you national team was welcome in France by the entire population including the press who never expressed anything negative against the blacks. Rugby means respect, on the field and all around. This last Rougerie’s polemic is too much. Mc Caw spent the all game offside in rucks in front of Mr Joubert who finaly sanctionned him only once…
To refresh you minds
http://www.newsnours.com/2011/10/vid%C3%A9o-des-erreurs-de-joubert-l-arbitreen-finale-de-la-coupe-du-monde-de-rugby.html
Well done All Blacks
From Paris with love….
You’re right to go on about it Les Blues. It’s not about eye gouging, or who was the best team, it’s about fairness. There was nothing fair about Joubert’s cop out. It would have been better for the game and the AB’s if France were at least given ONE chance to kick out of several. If Trinh-Duc missed, noone would be complaining. If he scored, France would have been the winners, and to be fair they would have deserved it more. You can’t blame, or take away anything from New Zealand. It’s the refs. If we had video technology (if a big red neon light lit up in the stadium) for an offside, things would be different. I’m in favor or using more technology as long as it works properly and doesn’t interrupt the flow of the game, and that’s certainly possible.
France didn’t have to beat Tonga. They didn’t have to beat New Zealand the first time, and they didn’t have to score a try or an additional penalty against Wales. They did what they had to do to get to the final. They didn’t cheat, and they were cheated by a ref that wouldn’t or couldn’t award a penalty to France.
I think that after this RWC, some change in refereeing is going to have to come about. I don’t know whether it is more technology or more refs or what, but the simple fact is that it didn’t work, and seemed to be worse in the bigger games with the better refs. Can’t quite work that out! Maybe the bigger teams are just that much more cynical and prepared to cheat!
“This last Rougerie’s polemic is too much. Mc Caw spent the all game offside in rucks in front of Mr Joubert who finaly sanctionned him only once…” – I see. So if the opposing player cheats and is not caught by the ref then eye gouging him is fine and any complaints about the eye gouges are unjustified whining.
This is just tosh. Assaulting someone’s eyes is a cowardly offence, especially when that person is pinned at the bottom of a ruck. Rougerie is being rightly pilloried for doing it. McCaw is a massive cheat who seems to get away with being offside permanently, but this still does not justify attempting to claw his eyes out.
You are right to complain about the ref. You are right to complain that McCaw was offside. You have no right to say that any of this justifies attempted eye gouging. Where does that end? Can I take a knife onto the field to sort out the infringements the ref doesn’t see in the next game?
I tend to agree with Brighty on this – there’s no justification for eye gouging whatsoever.
I felt cheated after the final having seen Joubert’s officiating, particularly when he bottled it in the last 5 minutes – he couldn’t bring himself to be the one that awarded France a penalty to lose NZ the cup. But again, you can’t condone gouging.
Totally agreed.
This link is the most bias and ignorant (of the laws of the game) thing I have seen.
I can dispute the vast majority of the rucks they talk about one by one if you thats what it takes:
1) Woodcock does offend – but not for the reason they say – he does have the ball but he s off his feet. The problem is before theat happens richie mcCaw has rights to the ball and the French player doesn’t release.
2) Apparently Richie McCaw is playing the ball here – no he s not. What he is doing is not affecting the game in any way – the ball is practically out- it comes out unhindered. Its basically just argy bargy.
3) they compare two incidents that aren’t they same – when you re out of the blocks too early but you stop (when charging a kick), that’s very different from the second incident when you re attempting a tackle – which you then follow through on ( after attempting to get back onside).
4) the head high by tony woodcock – looks at the laws of the game – if you hit below the shoulder and then they ‘duck into it’ its not a penalty. To be contrasted with ducking into it before contact, which is still a penalty.
5) its not a penatly to the french captain. The player on the ground has released it but richie comes in attempts to clear him out – its a contest for the ball and the french player couldnt win it.
6) “they re playing the ball off their feet”. No they re not. richie Mccaw was competing in the ruck, fell onto the wrong side – he then raised both hands into the air – he couldn’t get out of their. Happens all the time in rugby across the globe with no penalty. French were awarded the ball going forward.
7) “there were four penalties there”. No there weren’t. Kaino won the ball on his feet and then when he went to ground he released it. The question is whether Kaino had rights to ball thogh – im not sure actually. Anyone know?
SO basically these guys rack up a whole lot of footage – some are 50/50 calls. but a lot of this is rubbish from people who are obviously big fans but don’t know the rules and are hating on the AB’s.
I honestly beg people to watch the last 10minutes again. Upon watching a game the second or third time (like me) people are more fair. I think this is because the emotion of who we want to win is taken out – and since rugby is full of 50/50 calls sometimes we always see these the way we want to.
But I challenge you to watch it again and I honestly think you ll see a very disciplined NZ side.
NB: If you compete for the ball but fall to the other side of the ruck – attempt to get out of the way, put your hands in the air to show you re not slowing it down – You re not offside! the question is whether, as a player on the ground, you are attempting to roll away, and whether you tried to stay on you feet.
“NB: If you compete for the ball but fall to the other side of the ruck – attempt to get out of the way, put your hands in the air to show you re not slowing it down – You re not offside!” – that is not true, you are offside. How easy would it be to cheat if you simply had to lift your arms in the air to not be offside? If you are on the wrong side, regardless of how you got there, then you are offside. If you do not immediately make a massive attempt to get onside then it is a penalty.
i said you have to have tried to stay on your feet and whether you attempt to roll away
That’s still not right though. Intent is no defence when a ref is deciding on a penalty. You have to have made as much effort as he thinks you should have, it’s a clear rule otherwise you’ll get loads of people pretending to try and roll away, all that hands up in the air rubbish, knowing they won’t get penalised.
What everyone knows is that McCaw is a master at giving some indication of intent to roll away but it would naive to think he is not just trying to play the ref. He gets away with it, a lot. It’s still a penalty.