Official West Hartlepool RFC

Staggered by this to be honest.
I have not seen any evidence, of course, however the point I would make is that in any game of rugby there are numerous instances where "contact" is made with the eyes and 99.9% of it will be unintentional and without any injury whatsoever.
I have noticed the increase in the number of photographers patrolling our touchlines in recent seasons. Judging by the length of their lenses I suspect they take good photos.
Can I suggest we trawl back through their albums and get half of the opposition teams banned, and then we won't have any games to watch and can all go Christmas shopping on a Saturday afternoon instead.

Unbelievable! How do they arrive at these lengthy bans using the percentage of probability, especially when there was no reaction from player or ref during the game. As wpa stated, most of these incidents are accidental or in Rollos case non existent. Manu tualagi got 5 weeks for deliberately punching Chris Ashton's lights out!!! If you use the percentages of probability the how about this; 1 player having deliberate 'contact' with his eyes, in 1 game by two different opponents and not one person on the pitch mentioning anything until after the game!! 5% probable would be somewhere near.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2012 12:30 by davepicken.

I can’t see how these bans can be justified. A still photo would not show any intent, it simply captures one single moment in time, and it sounds more likely that Cheslin was grasping at the player after he had stepped back inside. I've seen people banned for 3 weeks after head butting and 5 weeks for deliberately eye gouging in front of a referee, I don’t understand how or why a 9 or 12 week ban can be justified for a non deliberate act. For me this is a no brainer, it has to be appealed.

Point of clarity. The entry point for an offence of making contact with the eye or eye area is actually 18 weeks so both of these judgements should be put in that context.