Reggie Corrigan speaks about getting Eye-Gouged

Anyone else have a read of this. Corrigan was gouged in the 2003 RWC v Argentina and speaks about it in the Irish Times.

"It was scariest moment I've ever had on a rugby pitch. I've always said that. He ripped my contact lens in two and right out of my eye. I thought my eye was gone. When I came out of it and took my hand away from my eye, there was just blackness. I couldn't see. I genuinely though he ripped my eyeball from my socket. I genuinely did, because the two fingers went right in, like they were going into the back of my head".

What a bloody description. Seriously hope that eye-gouging dies a death from here on; disgusting thing. Rugby is full of hard men. But there are some bloody cowards out there too.

Who was it that gouged him and what sort of ban did he get? i always remember the picture of Garin Jenkins with an Argentinian finger in his eye.

A bloke named Mauricio Reggiardo. He was cited and got a 6 week ban.

6 weeks is nothing for an act of that sort!

The Argentinians, in the past, have always played on the edge of the laws. I think in the RWC 2003 Roberto Grau also partook in a spot of gouging in the very same game as Reggie Corrigan listed - on Keith Wood if I'm correct?

I think its impotant to remeber the big difference between whats being described there , a genuine gouge, and some of the semi accidental finger raking incidents which have led to witch hunts and longer bans in recent times ( eg that Irish chap who missed the Lions)
Even the guy who got a life ban had only been trying to hand off a defender.

Accusations of eye gouging are easily bandied about (Ospreys), but genuine eye gouges of that nature are rare thank god. Where theres clear evidence bans should be at the very high end, unless youre French of course.

There is no such thing as semi accidental. It's either deliberate or accidental.

mckay1402 wrote:There is no such thing as semi accidental. It's either deliberate or accidental.

Agree. There is no need for hands to be ANYWHERE near the eyes.

Here's the video of 'the irish guy', Alan Quinlan, who missed the Lions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BQK0OVJsS8

Not as bad as some I've seen, but there's no way in hell fingers should be anywhere near the eyes. He was right to miss the lions.

mckay1402 wrote:There is no such thing as semi accidental. It's either deliberate or accidental.

So you see someone pushing someone in face and unintentionally having finger in the eye as the same as someone deliberately trying to put their finger in someone elses eye? They're massively different to me. Doesn't make unintential contact ok but its not the same as deliberate.

To me there are three stages

Accidental - nobodies fault just one of those things (no ban)
Unintential - hands deliberately around the face but no deliberate eye contact (small ban [6 weeks to 24 weeks])
Deliberate - intentionally making contact with the eye area (large ban [24 weeks to life])

mckay1402 wrote:There is no such thing as semi accidental. It's either deliberate or accidental.

If you dont know the difference between recklessly pushing with your hands and cathching the eye and deliberatly hooking your fingers under someones eyeball with the express intent of pulling it out then im glad you arent in charge of stuff.
Is it worse to put your hands up to defend a headbutt or kick someone in the nodgers?

Martin Corry was banned for punching someone in the eye, he still get s called a gouger...thats just wrong. There is a difference.

I didnt say that Quinaln didnt deserve a ban, but compared to the 6 weeks for the guy in the incident described it was ridiculous.

Recklessness and Intent are different but I still fail to grasp what "semi-accidental" is.

red_stag wrote:Recklessness and Intent are different but I still fail to grasp what "semi-accidental" is.

An action that risks but does not intend to catch the eye.
Like a forward pass infront of Clancy

[quote="Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler"]

red_stag wrote:An action that risks but does not intend to catch the eye.

Yea an accident. If he did it without meaning to cause injury its an accident. To me though I fail to see how grasping around the face area is ever an innocent accident. Going anywhere near face is reckless even if the player doesn't mean to cause injury.

There is just accident and deliberate.

It wasnt an accident his hand was there, it was an aaccident he caught teh guys eye.

Driving fast isnt accidental, driving into a moose as a result (usually) is.

There is a difference between a deliberate targetting of the eye and a reckless action that led to the accidental eye contact.

Not every result of a deliberate action is in itself deliberate.

Hence the differentiation between levels of offence and intent being considered when dishing out bans. Its not a difficult concept unless youre just being recklessly difficult, or deliberatly targetting a stupid argument over semantics.

mpc28 wrote:Who was it that gouged him and what sort of ban did he get? i always remember the picture of Garin Jenkins with an Argentinian finger in his eye.

That picture was against South Africa not Argentina. If it's the one I am thinking of it is of him sitting down with the player comming from behind and sticking his finger in his eye.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:There is no such thing as semi accidental. It's either deliberate or accidental.

If you dont know the difference between recklessly pushing with your hands and cathching the eye and deliberatly hooking your fingers under someones eyeball with the express intent of pulling it out then im glad you arent in charge of stuff.
Is it worse to put your hands up to defend a headbutt or kick someone in the nodgers?

Martin Corry was banned for punching someone in the eye, he still get s called a gouger...thats just wrong. There is a difference.

I didnt say that Quinaln didnt deserve a ban, but compared to the 6 weeks for the guy in the incident described it was ridiculous.

Well that is accidental. I stand by my original statement. Either you intend to make contact with the eye in which case it's deliberate or you don't in which case it's accidental. There is no such thing as semi accidental. You can't half mean to gouge someone. if you can't work out rudimentary english then I'm glad you're not in charge.

mckay1402 wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:There is no such thing as semi accidental. It's either deliberate or accidental.

If you dont know the difference between recklessly pushing with your hands and cathching the eye and deliberatly hooking your fingers under someones eyeball with the express intent of pulling it out then im glad you arent in charge of stuff.
Is it worse to put your hands up to defend a headbutt or kick someone in the nodgers?

Martin Corry was banned for punching someone in the eye, he still get s called a gouger...thats just wrong. There is a difference.

I didnt say that Quinaln didnt deserve a ban, but compared to the 6 weeks for the guy in the incident described it was ridiculous.

Well that is accidental. I stand by my original statement. Either you intend to make contact with the eye in which case it's deliberate or you don't in which case it's accidental. There is no such thing as semi accidental. You can't half mean to gouge someone. if you can't work out rudimentary english then I'm glad you're not in charge.

You are like Hitler

ha ha. brilliant comeback!

Apparently Healy got eye gouged saturday on the deck after a tackle and that it damaged his eye socket!!!!!

Disgusting!

Was he eye gouged? He did damage his eye socket but neither at the game or after the game have I hear eye gouging mentioned.

Way I saw it was there was an accidental contact made to eye area when players were on top of each other on ground.

I read it earlier I think in the times or the independentt. They don't go and make a claim in the article but apparently the doctor who got to Cian first had some select words for the ref. Have a look for it can't remember which article it was but was one of the main ones

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:Apparently Healy got eye gouged saturday on the deck after a tackle and that it damaged his eye socket!!!!!

Disgusting!

Pretty big statment to come out with. Where did you "apparently" hear/read this?

Pete, clearly he has an eye injury. But with eye injuries as with any kind - there can be accidents. I've watched game twice on television and seen nothing to suggest anything untoward in that incident let alone disgusting.

I've watched it a few times aswell and didn't see anything, granted I wasn't looking for anything. I am just going on what I read in the article I will go and have a look for it now. If it is the case well then it is disgusting IMO.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2011/0829/1224303144422.html

it's this one a few paragraphs down.
On second reading I have been presumptious but obviously the doctor wasn't very happy about something.
The wording of the article doesn't help

What was with Tom Croft that game?
Seemed very quick tempered. He's usually very relaxed.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:An action that risks but does not intend to catch the eye.
Like a forward pass infront of Clancy

Legend!

Surprised there isn't more on the Healy incident to be honest with you. It was the act that triggered the scuffle just before the ref spoke to Croft and Healy. From the angle I was looking at it from, Healy clipped Cole at the previous breakdown (you can call it an attempt to counter-ruck, but it had moved on from counter-rucking about 5-6 minutes before when Cole and Flannery started lining each other up). Croft takes Healy aside on the breakdown (clearing out, looked legal enough), then Cole swung and arm and got in close to Healy on the ground. I guessed and said to the group next to me as the players started scuffling that it looked like the usual reaction when a player gets a bit of a gouging. They, england supporters (a good group of lads up for a bit of banter), muttered the same back to me as the dust settled and Healy got medical treatment.

For deliberate eye gouges a ban is fitting, but accidents are possible: Once, while in the process of handing-off a tackler, I managed to get my finger lodged in his nostril! I certainly didn't intend this outcome, and I could quite easily have got my finger in his eye I supppose. I wouldn't have liked to have been banned for that.

Mr Fishpaste wrote:For deliberate eye gouges a ban is fitting, but accidents are possible: Once, while in the process of handing-off a tackler, I managed to get my finger lodged in his nostril! I certainly didn't intend this outcome, and I could quite easily have got my finger in his eye I supppose. I wouldn't have liked to have been banned for that.

Somebody has been. I think it was life ban for blinding someone after a hand off.

I thought I saw Crofts elbow hit Healey in the face the ruck/tussle (it didn't look like a strike). That may well be the source of the damage. Also the Irish medic was going on about the fact Croft was involved in another scuffle (I think)

If anybody goes for the eyes during a televised match they automatically should get a ban for being so stupid.

Cymroglan wrote:If anybody goes for the eyes during a televised match they automatically should get a ban for being so stupid.

Completely agree. Whatever about Quinlan's intentions back in 2009 against Leinster, it was just plain retarded to have his hands anywhere near the face of the player (didn't look at the link, but it was Cullen I think?) in what was the biggest attendance for a club game. He knew there was cameras everywhere, was just plain insanity. He'll regret it for the rest of his life anyway.

I think the main problem with the punishments is the complete diversity in the length of bans. Jennings a while back was given 8 weeks I think for something fairly innocuous while Attoub and that French scrum half who's name escapes me were given very hefty bans for their gouge on Ferris. and then you have Burger getting 6 weeks for a pretty bad and clearly intentional one against the Lions. The punishments really need to be standardised across the boards before any real "justice" can be done IMO. It's all well and good giving Attoub a massive ban, but if you don't give the same against the likes of Burger, there's no real equity to the whole thing.

Yeah I agree with that. There do seem to be certain levels if severity though IMO. Like one that looks deliberate and more importantly maliscous should be more heavily sanctioned IMO, they are all somewhat maliscous obviously but the Burger one was completely off the ball, he'd rolled Fitz out of the ruck and everything.

Maybe 3 catagories of severity should be sanctioned.

No idea why the IRFU haven't made a claim or something, I suppose what's the point no reason to sully someone's reputation it's not as if it would help Ireland to go back and win the match or anything.

I'd say Croft was shaking in his boots though in case someone had reported it and he missed the RWC.

There are 3 levels of severity for all offences. Higher, Middle and Lower range sanctions.

I still don't see why IRFU would make a claim. I have yet to see anything close to an eye gouge in this incident.

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:No idea why the IRFU haven't made a claim or something, I suppose what's the point no reason to sully someone's reputation it's not as if it would help Ireland to go back and win the match or anything.

I'd say Croft was shaking in his boots though in case someone had reported it and he missed the RWC.

Or there was nothing in it? You've taken a small paragraph in a newspaper that didn't even suggest a gouging attempt and turned it into the IRFU letting Croft off. Jenning got 12 weeks I think. It was for putting his hand on Kennady's face to push off when Kennady wouldn't let Jennings away from a ruck. The ruling was that he deliberately put his hand on his face so it was unintentional eye contact.

As for Burger and Fitzgerald, I didn't see it as bad as most others I think. It looked to me like he grabbed him by the face to pull him out of the ruck (much like Quinlan on Cullen). Don't get me wrong, it should have been closer to the 18 weeks Best got for doing something similar to Haskell. But I never saw it as deliberate gouging.

There are plenty of ways to get an eye injury in rugby without it being a gouge. Elbows, heads, knees, studs... anything can make contact.

There has been no suggestion that the contact with Healy has been anything other than unfortunate.

mrsuperclear wrote:

Cymroglan wrote:If anybody goes for the eyes during a televised match they automatically should get a ban for being so stupid.

Completely agree. Whatever about Quinlan's intentions back in 2009 against Leinster, it was just plain retarded to have his hands anywhere near the face of the player (didn't look at the link, but it was Cullen I think?) in what was the biggest attendance for a club game. He knew there was cameras everywhere, was just plain insanity. He'll regret it for the rest of his life anyway.

I think the main problem with the punishments is the complete diversity in the length of bans. Jennings a while back was given 8 weeks I think for something fairly innocuous while Attoub and that French scrum half who's name escapes me were given very hefty bans for their gouge on Ferris. and then you have Burger getting 6 weeks for a pretty bad and clearly intentional one against the Lions. The punishments really need to be standardised across the boards before any real "justice" can be done IMO. It's all well and good giving Attoub a massive ban, but if you don't give the same against the likes of Burger, there's no real equity to the whole thing.

Some good points there.

From memory it was the ludicrously short ban on Burger that prompted the IRB to toughen the ban times on gouging leading to the longer ones imposed on the French pair (I can't remember where Jennings fits into the timeline) - so it's more a case that they couldn't make retrospective rules.

Burger's ban was (conveniently) the same length as the one Parisse was given the day before (and that Parisse's gouge couldn't have been more obvious to the camera). IMO both should have been longer. While Cueto's one was ultimately fair in duration - except that the judges failed to take into account the weeks of off-season covered by the ban.

Kiwireddevil wrote:While Cueto's one was ultimately fair in duration - except that the judges failed to take into account the weeks of off-season covered by the ban.

Cueto's was fair before it was halved. The ridiculous concept of a one off 50% reduction is ludicrous. The biggest problem is there is no consistency. The ERC have taken the iRB directive to be tougher much more seriously than the individual unions judicial panels, and this has led to wildly different bans.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

mrsuperclear wrote:

Cymroglan wrote:If anybody goes for the eyes during a televised match they automatically should get a ban for being so stupid.

Completely agree. Whatever about Quinlan's intentions back in 2009 against Leinster, it was just plain retarded to have his hands anywhere near the face of the player (didn't look at the link, but it was Cullen I think?) in what was the biggest attendance for a club game. He knew there was cameras everywhere, was just plain insanity. He'll regret it for the rest of his life anyway.

I think the main problem with the punishments is the complete diversity in the length of bans. Jennings a while back was given 8 weeks I think for something fairly innocuous while Attoub and that French scrum half who's name escapes me were given very hefty bans for their gouge on Ferris. and then you have Burger getting 6 weeks for a pretty bad and clearly intentional one against the Lions. The punishments really need to be standardised across the boards before any real "justice" can be done IMO. It's all well and good giving Attoub a massive ban, but if you don't give the same against the likes of Burger, there's no real equity to the whole thing.

Some good points there.

From memory it was the ludicrously short ban on Burger that prompted the IRB to toughen the ban times on gouging leading to the longer ones imposed on the French pair (I can't remember where Jennings fits into the timeline) - so it's more a case that they couldn't make retrospective rules.

Burger's ban was (conveniently) the same length as the one Parisse was given the day before (and that Parisse's gouge couldn't have been more obvious to the camera). IMO both should have been longer. While Cueto's one was ultimately fair in duration - except that the judges failed to take into account the weeks of off-season covered by the ban.

Jennings received his ban for an incident in round 1 of the HC in the 09/10 season so it was sometime in October 09. Which would have been after Burger and before Attoub and Dupuy.

I see absolutely nothing to suggest Healy was gouged or intentionally injured by the way. This conversation is actually bordering on embarrassing!

greybeard wrote:
The ERC have taken the iRB directive to be tougher much more seriously than the individual unions judicial panels, and this has led to wildly different bans.

You're dead right there. The IRB needs to either set up an impartial panel to hear cases, or (as that could be expensive and clunky) at least a global oversight panel with the power to amend sentences.

IMO the entire citing process needs a complete over haul.

Question Stag – unintentional contact with the eye, does that mean contact of the eye with your hand or could it be any part of your body?
Because if unintentional contact with the eye is in itself an offence, then there’s a case for a citing everytime anyone gets an eye injury.

Common sense suggests the hand.

Sorry guys maybe I read into the paragraph too much I just thought something sounded funny about it and obviously a newspaper isn't going to go out and say something like that unless there is proof.

Haven't actually looked at the incident again since reading the article

Either way got some good debate out of it.

stag what about a punch, can that be intentional contact with the eyae and a bigger ban then just throwing a punch

No a punch is a punch. And it can be increased or decreased based on the severity.

Think it would be a case of mountain out of mole hill.

greybeard wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote:While Cueto's one was ultimately fair in duration - except that the judges failed to take into account the weeks of off-season covered by the ban.

Cueto's was fair before it was halved. The ridiculous concept of a one off 50% reduction is ludicrous. The biggest problem is there is no consistency. The ERC have taken the iRB directive to be tougher much more seriously than the individual unions judicial panels, and this has led to wildly different bans.

Spot on Greybeard. The lack of consistency in IRB punishments is extraordinary and understandably leads to accusations of biased. However, it isnt the IRB being biased IMO, its just contemptible lunacy.

Cueto's ban should have stood, and whilst it wasnt for gouging, so should Mealamu's (for the Moody headbut). Both reductions show the IRB disciplinary panels as being ludicrous

Not really. The up to 50% is standard practice and is endorsed by the IRB. It's also standard practice in the legal world. I don't see the big problem with it. the only issue I had with Cueto's was the fact it was at the end of the season

What was with Tom Croft that game?
Seemed very quick tempered. He's usually very relaxed..

He got targeted in the first incident and seemed to take offense to something (there were some fists flying around on the deck) after that he seemed to really want to get stuck into the Irish. I thought he had a really good game (presumeabley why he got targeted early on). The thing with Healey looked like it came from a punch (him and Croft exchanged a couple in the scrabble before the 'cavalry' arrived from both sides), the injury looked to be on his cheek bone underneath his eye which I imagine would fit with a punch more than an attempted eye gouge (I'm no medical expert mind).