fivepointer wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 11:20 am
Nasty. Cole is holding him down but thats pretty clear contact with the eyes from the Glasgow player.
Yep. Looks like a pretty obvious attempt at an eye gouge. Needs a big ban for that.
Cole isn’t the type to play it up either which suggests there was real, painful contact. Did he ask anyone to take a look?
No, ran it off and got some discreet treatment in the Tigers half I think. Had he called the refs attention to it then even a cursory TMO review would have picked it up.
According to the Telegraph Tigers have asked the citing office to review it.
fivepointer wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 11:20 am
Nasty. Cole is holding him down but thats pretty clear contact with the eyes from the Glasgow player.
Yep. Looks like a pretty obvious attempt at an eye gouge. Needs a big ban for that.
Cole isn’t the type to play it up either which suggests there was real, painful contact. Did he ask anyone to take a look?
No, ran it off and got some discreet treatment in the Tigers half I think. Had he called the refs attention to it then even a cursory TMO review would have picked it up.
According to the Telegraph Tigers have asked the citing office to review it.
While we condemn players for seagulling at the referee or playacting injury as being against the spirit of the game, it's undeniable that it does get results. The taciturn and old-school Cole kept a dignified silence, but if he'd come over all Ben Earl (or gone to an earlier generation and reacted by finding and decking the culprit), then it could've been a game-changing red card. As it is, dignity and the spirit of the game didn't pay.
This is not endorsing playacting, just noting why it's occurring. The TMO makes it worse in a lot of ways, cause players know that evidence can be found, whereas in the olden days, there was no point complaining after the fact, cause "I can only give what I see."
If that’s not cited, the game’s ridiculous. We’ve lost two players for weeks in the last two seasons for actual rugby accidents- bollox citings tbh and poor hearings imo- so when you see this shyte unpunished…
The TMO really should have picked it up but also Dan calmly walking up to the ref and politely requesting a review would have got the correct result. Didn't need Earl level of theatrics. If we want arm waving and football levels of appealing to go away then we need to get TMOs doing a better job and refs clamping down on these things.
As for Tigers, playing against 14 with Glasgow missing their best player on the night from the second minute onwards might well have meant progression and a mauling against Leinster this weekend
FKAS wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 8:47 pm
It's been cited. A long ban should be incoming.
The TMO really should have picked it up but also Dan calmly walking up to the ref and politely requesting a review would have got the correct result. Didn't need Earl level of theatrics. If we want arm waving and football levels of appealing to go away then we need to get TMOs doing a better job and refs clamping down on these things.
As for Tigers, playing against 14 with Glasgow missing their best player on the night from the second minute onwards might well have meant progression and a mauling against Leinster this weekend
Halving the sentence for serious foul play because he admitted guilt, showed remorse and hadn't done it before is complete BS. Of course he admitted guilt the video evidence was damning.
Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 5:22 pm
I don’t care how remorseful you are or how good your record is, putting your fingers in someone’s eyes should be the maximum ban.
Regardless of intention? Obviously it looks terrible but I’m not sure how you can really prove intention to do it when the guy is unsighted and in a headlock.
Maybe I’ve misunderstood, but he admitted putting his fingers in the eye area, not to trying to gouge someone? I’m certainly not defending it, but that’s the logic, right?
12 weeks seems a reasonable start point. The routine halving/reduction of bans feels like a slightly separate issue.
There are some offences so obvious and so serious that surely the panel can waive the usual reductions? You're sorry. So what? Gouging should carry at least a 12 week minimum ban i'd say.
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 4:15 pm
So… definitely intentionally going for the eyes then.
It makes sense that some things are beyond the pale. If you take the risk of an open hand at a face then you meet the thin skull principle. Personally I don’t think reductions for gouging, punching etc are warranted
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 4:15 pm
So… definitely intentionally going for the eyes then.
It makes sense that some things are beyond the pale. If you take the risk of an open hand at a face then you meet the thin skull principle. Personally I don’t think reductions for gouging, punching etc are warranted
Yes. Intentionally going for another players eyes is beyond the pale. I’m just confused by the absolute certainty that this is what he was doing. My instinct when someone has me in a headlock would be to grab their face and shove them off me.
Clearly I’m too biased in Glasgow’s favour, not that I particularly like Venter as a player.
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 4:15 pm
So… definitely intentionally going for the eyes then.
It makes sense that some things are beyond the pale. If you take the risk of an open hand at a face then you meet the thin skull principle. Personally I don’t think reductions for gouging, punching etc are warranted
Yes. Intentionally going for another players eyes is beyond the pale. I’m just confused by the absolute certainty that this is what he was doing. My instinct when someone has me in a headlock would be to grab their face and shove them off me.
Clearly I’m too biased in Glasgow’s favour, not that I particularly like Venter as a player.
Why would your instinct in a headlock be to grab someone's face? Is there a reason other than threatening to damage their eyes to make them let go?
It’s easiest to extend an arm away from your own head. It’s far easier to get leverage against somebody’s head than the bulk of their body.
Maybe I need to watch it back or missed some clearer angle. I’m just not getting whether a) his malicious intent is 100% clear to everyone but me or b) his intent doesn’t matter.
A ban starting at 12 weeks for being reckless enough to put your hands in another player’s face seems totally reasonable, to be fair, I’m not arguing that he’s been hard done by in any sense.
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 12:37 am
It’s easiest to extend an arm away from your own head. It’s far easier to get leverage against somebody’s head than the bulk of their body.
Maybe I need to watch it back or missed some clearer angle. I’m just not getting whether a) his malicious intent is 100% clear to everyone but me or b) his intent doesn’t matter.
A ban starting at 12 weeks for being reckless enough to put your hands in another player’s face seems totally reasonable, to be fair, I’m not arguing that he’s been hard done by in any sense.
I think this is where I am at too, but only seen one angle. Looks reckless, but hard to say if it was a deliberate attempt to gouge.
Ban seems about right unless there is more evidence than I have seen.
It makes sense that some things are beyond the pale. If you take the risk of an open hand at a face then you meet the thin skull principle. Personally I don’t think reductions for gouging, punching etc are warranted
Yes. Intentionally going for another players eyes is beyond the pale. I’m just confused by the absolute certainty that this is what he was doing. My instinct when someone has me in a headlock would be to grab their face and shove them off me.
Clearly I’m too biased in Glasgow’s favour, not that I particularly like Venter as a player.
Why would your instinct in a headlock be to grab someone's face? Is there a reason other than threatening to damage their eyes to make them let go?
Puja
Quite. I think we can discount Venter might have intended to give Cole's nose a tweak.
Danno wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 2:07 am
Aye sorry, I wasn't being clear enough. For me it's (b). No room for leniency on certain offences regardless of intent.
So the ban for intentionally doing it should be far more (no problem with that) or just the same?
I don’t understand this thinking of making manslaughter the same as murder. Or just disregarding intent entirely because he’s a typical dirty Saffa.
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 12:37 am
It’s easiest to extend an arm away from your own head. It’s far easier to get leverage against somebody’s head than the bulk of their body.
Maybe I need to watch it back or missed some clearer angle. I’m just not getting whether a) his malicious intent is 100% clear to everyone but me or b) his intent doesn’t matter.
A ban starting at 12 weeks for being reckless enough to put your hands in another player’s face seems totally reasonable, to be fair, I’m not arguing that he’s been hard done by in any sense.
I think it would pay to watch it back, as I would say malicious intent is 100% clear to me. It's not a glancing blow with a flailing hand from someone trying to get out of a headlock (and that word implies more danger than he was actually in as he's not being throttled or choked, but being held against Cole with the arm around the back of his neck). Instead he reaches up to where he knows Cole's head is, puts his hand into Cole's face for a good second or two, then rakes his fingers across. It's a deliberate motion to make Cole let go of him by hurting him.
Here's the video teed up to the right moment:
I've seen worse gouges in my time and I'm not screaming for him to be banned for life or anything, but it's definitely deliberate in my book.
