Wednesday, September 29, 2010
The Juan Manuel Leguizamon eyegouge that got an 80 day ban
Leguizamon picked up the heavy ban after the Stade Francais game against Toulouse at the end of last month. While he was not actually found guilty of deliberately eye gouging Jean Bouilhou, he was deemed to have made contact with the eye region.
He had been carded earlier in what was quite a violent game, where four yellow cards were handed out for dirty play. You can see his tackle at the beginning of the clip. He wasnt pinned for eye gouging later on, but was subsequently cited and charged.
Despite the victim, Bouilhou, actually sending a letter in to the leagues disciplinary committee to exonerate Leguizamon, the Argentine international was still found guilty and given the 80 day ban, the minimum for such an offence.
He will be able to play again on December 5, resulting in him missing out on Test matches for Argentina in November, as well as Top 14 and Amlin Challenge Cup games.
Eye gouging is a sensitive subject and it cant be taken lightly, but do you think that he was possibly dealt with a little harshly on this one? Or maybe all players should be aware by now that if you get your hands near another players face, youre going to be in trouble.
Time: 01:43
Posted at 10:05 pm | 68 comments
|
|
|
Viewing 68 comments
Anonymous September 29, 2010 9:20 pm
Nothing in it. Hope Rugby doesn't turn like the NFL where everything is pinged for 'unnescesary roughness'
Leeners93 September 29, 2010 9:28 pm
that looked pretty bad to me,fingers were fairly hooked,and even if he didnt make contact with the actual eye,i think the intent was there.
80 days seems ok,in my opinion
80 days seems ok,in my opinion
Anonymous September 29, 2010 9:32 pm
pullin at someones face like that should be a card. he defo made contact with the eye area. intentional or not he shouldnt have gotten himself into the position.
dutchrugbyplayer September 29, 2010 9:36 pm
first a swinging arm, then this. looks suspicious to say the least. huge respect for the victim though for defending him...
good thing he isn't September 29, 2010 9:37 pm
Nothing serious about that...80 days seems a bit harsh, but it could've been worse...moving on. Of course, that won't happen, so now let's hear all the supercilious comments about how he did it intentionally and could've put an eye out.
Thanks for the video, RD. Hopefully it manages to stay up.
Thanks for the video, RD. Hopefully it manages to stay up.
Anonymous September 29, 2010 9:39 pm
Rugby is rough and I love playing it, but when you add unnecessary roughness like eye gouging it takes away from the game. Just play the game in a clean manor and enjoy it. In my opinion if someone is playing like this, it shows his lack of true talent.
youcan'tstopusnow September 29, 2010 9:39 pm
Nothing much in these. First was a mistimed aggressive attempt at a tackle. The second was just silly grabbing the guys face. Burger does worse than this and gets away with it.
Anonymous September 29, 2010 9:58 pm
Aw shit, I knew he would get cited after this when I saw it. 80 days sounds a little too harsh IMO, although this isn't the first time Legui gets in trouble...
Anonymous September 29, 2010 9:59 pm
Rugby doesn't need this sort of thing, Im glad that he has received a lengthy ban, it sends a message to all levels of rugby that this is not acceptable.
Only last season, a player at Gravesend RFC lost sight in one eye following a gouging incident, which has led to him losing his job (HGV driver), there is absolutely no place for it in rugby!
Only last season, a player at Gravesend RFC lost sight in one eye following a gouging incident, which has led to him losing his job (HGV driver), there is absolutely no place for it in rugby!
Anonymous September 29, 2010 10:08 pm
if you slow down anything with super slow motion its going to look pretty bad, you could make any big hit look like they're too dangerous. just suck it up its rugby, things like this happen and you move on, its not like he flew in with 2 fingers aimed at the guys eyes, he was just being an idiot in the maul and somehow got his arms around the opposition, 80 day ban is retarded
John F September 29, 2010 10:09 pm
How can it really be unintentional? When a player puts his hand on that side of a player's head what else is he doing it for? Trying to get a grip on the guy's head using his eye sockets? Well that might not be a great idea.
Anonymous September 29, 2010 10:10 pm
what is parisse playing if this guy is playing at 8?
Conor September 29, 2010 10:15 pm
Thats what the 3rd Stade player to get banned in the last 10/12months? If a whole team is going to play like that 80week bans are well deserved, although it wasn't the worst gouge i've ever seen, it was right infront of the ref and it was cheap as hell!
Anonymous September 29, 2010 11:13 pm
I recall well the penalty for eye gouging when I played in the 70s. Our hooker spotted the opposing tight head as his gouger. Next scrum our loose head broke the jaw of the gouger. The sole referee saw neither infraction. I believe the jaw was wired shut for 90 days. So this bloke should count himself lucky with an 80 day suspension. At least he will get solid food while he is off.
Anonymous September 29, 2010 11:16 pm
I think a difference should be made between grabing someone's face with the hands and aiming intentionnally at the eyes...next step will be someone getting a 80 weeks ban for a twisted ankle!!
Anonymous September 30, 2010 12:06 am
Eurosport commentary terrible as always.... he's an idiot for doing it and punishments have not always been consistent however seems appropriate for a very stupid and dangerous act on a fellow professional.
John F September 30, 2010 12:12 am
Errrmmm, no because you don't tackle a guy by the eye socket, the ankle would be slightly more legal.
mise September 30, 2010 1:26 am
Here's a piece on the Gravesend RFC player who lost sight in one eye and,basically, his job because of gouging:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/8663226.stm
Re the incident with Leguizamon:
I think that racking and penetration differ in seriousness, and this should be reflected in the punishments.
I also think that 80 days sound longer than 12 weeks or 3 months.
I also fear players hamming it up (like that London Irish guy last year, who's own captain Bob Casey was embarrassed by his fellow locks behaviour in tha tmatch against Leinster - about this time last year methinks)
Overall thou, I'd say 12 weeks (!) is about right for this, which would make proper penetration far longer IMO.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/8663226.stm
Re the incident with Leguizamon:
I think that racking and penetration differ in seriousness, and this should be reflected in the punishments.
I also think that 80 days sound longer than 12 weeks or 3 months.
I also fear players hamming it up (like that London Irish guy last year, who's own captain Bob Casey was embarrassed by his fellow locks behaviour in tha tmatch against Leinster - about this time last year methinks)
Overall thou, I'd say 12 weeks (!) is about right for this, which would make proper penetration far longer IMO.
Mise September 30, 2010 1:27 am
by hamming it up i mean pretending that a rake is a penetration, or a hand off is a rake etc etc and ranting at the ref to have the guy binned or sent off
Anonymous September 30, 2010 1:43 am
youcantstopusnow you are a retard. both your statements are just stupid. and dont say that burger does worse than that and gets away with it. yes he gouged once 18 months ago, hes now one of the most disciplined players in the southern hemisphere, not one yellow card all year, he usually has atleast 4 by now
Anonymous September 30, 2010 2:25 am
80 days sounds just fine.
Real men fight with their fists, not their fingers.
Real men fight with their fists, not their fingers.
Chris_J September 30, 2010 4:16 am
I can't really think of any time a player should grab another player by the head at all to be honest.
Chris September 30, 2010 6:05 am
At anon,
Real mean use fingers, as their fists would be way too large. Ladies use fists. If you catch my drift ;)
Real mean use fingers, as their fists would be way too large. Ladies use fists. If you catch my drift ;)
H September 30, 2010 8:59 am
Guys its simple.
There is NO reason whatsoever for any player on the pitch to make contact with another players eyes or face. Or one could argue their head as well.
In fact can anyone describe a situation apart from a scrum where contact with the head is allowed during a game?
Eye gouging in the world off the pitch is a criminal offence. end of story. anyone who does it should assume they will be severely punished whether they claim it was an accident or not.
if they're found guilty hand the incident over to the police!
its not rugby.
There is NO reason whatsoever for any player on the pitch to make contact with another players eyes or face. Or one could argue their head as well.
In fact can anyone describe a situation apart from a scrum where contact with the head is allowed during a game?
Eye gouging in the world off the pitch is a criminal offence. end of story. anyone who does it should assume they will be severely punished whether they claim it was an accident or not.
if they're found guilty hand the incident over to the police!
its not rugby.
Nick September 30, 2010 9:31 am
Look, this is a really easy rule to understand. If you make contact with face especially the eye area your going to be in trouble. He knows it, he must know that two players got lengthy bans last year for it but still goes for it.
In all honesty Leguizamon looks to have taken being 'fired up' for a game a bit too far. Whichever way you look at this, even taking away the potential of gouging, did he really think he was going to get the Toulouse player out of the maul by trying to pull his head off?
In all honesty Leguizamon looks to have taken being 'fired up' for a game a bit too far. Whichever way you look at this, even taking away the potential of gouging, did he really think he was going to get the Toulouse player out of the maul by trying to pull his head off?
Anonymous September 30, 2010 9:46 am
come on what's with all the fuss??? that guy ain't even French, no need to suspend him at all!
thought those treatments were reserved to freaky frogs who think they can play like men?
thought those treatments were reserved to freaky frogs who think they can play like men?
Anonymous September 30, 2010 10:14 am
Leguizamon is unfortunately for SF a huge idiot...
edbok September 30, 2010 10:23 am
The yellow was harsh, just looked a bit mistimed and pretty hard to point to any malicious intent there. But as I always say, the ref only gets one look, and you can see why he thought it dangerous.
The 80-day ban though, well it is the most lenient punishment they could hand down so I guess the suits must have decided this was accidental; if they'd had more room to move, perhaps his ban would have been less.
But generally, this is a prime exhibit of "things that look much worse in slow-motion". Should have been a penalty, perhaps even a card because trying to pull a player out of a maul by his head must rank somewhere on the reckless-and/or-dangerous-play scale, but the eye-contact seems incidental rather than deliberate. You can see though how they decided he was at fault, and if 80-days is the minimum punishment then by the book I suppose they got it correct.
The 80-day ban though, well it is the most lenient punishment they could hand down so I guess the suits must have decided this was accidental; if they'd had more room to move, perhaps his ban would have been less.
But generally, this is a prime exhibit of "things that look much worse in slow-motion". Should have been a penalty, perhaps even a card because trying to pull a player out of a maul by his head must rank somewhere on the reckless-and/or-dangerous-play scale, but the eye-contact seems incidental rather than deliberate. You can see though how they decided he was at fault, and if 80-days is the minimum punishment then by the book I suppose they got it correct.
Anonymous September 30, 2010 11:44 am
80 days for that?
too many even if he is a retarded..
too many even if he is a retarded..
NiWiTa September 30, 2010 12:23 pm
@edbok has it most right me thinks. Silly to try and remove someone from the maul by using their head as leverage - this is always going to look bad and is a penalty...
Having said that not sure whether the malicious intent was specifically for the eyes - but attacking the head using hands in front of the ref is probably worth a yellow for stupidity and once you are near the eyes it has to be a potential ban in light of recent refereeing focus.
Having said that not sure whether the malicious intent was specifically for the eyes - but attacking the head using hands in front of the ref is probably worth a yellow for stupidity and once you are near the eyes it has to be a potential ban in light of recent refereeing focus.
Anonymous September 30, 2010 12:33 pm
I don't think it was a gouge but what is he doing going for his head like that anyway? Did nothing to try and secure the ball or move the maul, just leapt in with both hands going for the guys face. If you start doing that you bound to get pinged!
Juggernauter September 30, 2010 1:01 pm
This guy is a good player, and his high ball game is brilliant. But I've seen him make some crazy stuff, spear tackles, off the ball tackles, crazy drop goals, that famous try he spoiled while in London Irish, and I've already forgot how many cards have been shown at him.
And now eye gouging.
This guy needs to get his rugby life straight.
And now eye gouging.
This guy needs to get his rugby life straight.
cut it out September 30, 2010 1:18 pm
80 days is good - having had 'contact' with my eyes in both my games at the start of this season - one probably accidental, one definitely not - any contact with eyes should be seen to be totally unacceptable.
jay September 30, 2010 2:13 pm
Well the funny part is the one who got gouged even wrote down a letter saying that there wasn't any intentional gouging from Leguizamon. (Bouilhou donc)
But didn't make a difference...
Now it's a pity cause this guy has amazing abilities and yet very indivual in his playing, not humble for sure (can still find a video of him jumping and...releasing the ball when he was playing for the london irish).
Get a brain, some sense of teamspirit and he could be a 6 7 or 8 for Argentina for a few years.
But didn't make a difference...
Now it's a pity cause this guy has amazing abilities and yet very indivual in his playing, not humble for sure (can still find a video of him jumping and...releasing the ball when he was playing for the london irish).
Get a brain, some sense of teamspirit and he could be a 6 7 or 8 for Argentina for a few years.
TB September 30, 2010 2:26 pm
You guys are crazy. Any ban should be 4 weeks or less, unless they go after a ref or stab someone with a knife or something. In what other sport do guys receive half season suspensions? It's ridiculous.
He didn't go after the eyes. The "victim" even said so.
Rugby was fine, it does not need this kind of draconian punishment.
He didn't go after the eyes. The "victim" even said so.
Rugby was fine, it does not need this kind of draconian punishment.
Anonymous September 30, 2010 3:28 pm
no way is that worthy of a 80-day ban!! Man up!!
Flooz September 30, 2010 3:50 pm
Few weeks before, i had written about on a RD article talkin about spear tackle and eye gouging.
My comments were not far from that:
"as IRB never give huge bans for eye-gouging for SH players, i bet what u want that the 1st "huge" ban will be for a french team in the HCup or ine the top14"
waw, a sort of prediction, no? :)
Leguizamon is a dirty and nervous player, i think he paid for a constant behaviour than a real eye-gouge
all credits to Bouilhou to testify for him
My comments were not far from that:
"as IRB never give huge bans for eye-gouging for SH players, i bet what u want that the 1st "huge" ban will be for a french team in the HCup or ine the top14"
waw, a sort of prediction, no? :)
Leguizamon is a dirty and nervous player, i think he paid for a constant behaviour than a real eye-gouge
all credits to Bouilhou to testify for him
Anonymous September 30, 2010 4:23 pm
First was a pretty cheap shot. Looked like he was going for some sort of punch as well as a tackle.
Second looked pretty intentional to me. I don't see how you can make an excuse for that.
-KG
Second looked pretty intentional to me. I don't see how you can make an excuse for that.
-KG
Anonymous September 30, 2010 4:24 pm
flooz wat about the stade prop who got 42 weeks fot making contact with Ferris for 3 hundreds of a second and on top of that there was no credible media evidence. and this from an irish fan
Anonymous September 30, 2010 4:26 pm
"as IRB never give huge bans for eye-gouging for SH players, i bet what u want that the 1st "huge" ban will be for a french team in the HCup or ine the top14"
waw, a sort of prediction, no?"
Not really since Depuy and Atoub were banned for long times (deservedly).
-KG
waw, a sort of prediction, no?"
Not really since Depuy and Atoub were banned for long times (deservedly).
-KG
Anonymous September 30, 2010 4:28 pm
"flooz wat about the stade prop who got 42 weeks fot making contact with Ferris for 3 hundreds of a second and on top of that there was no credible media evidence. and this from an irish fan"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/8462677.stm
Looks pretty bad to me and Depuy's was pretty clear as well. Doesn't really matter how long it was, you don't need to put your fingers in someone's eye for 20 seconds to do damage, half a second is more than enough.
-KG
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/8462677.stm
Looks pretty bad to me and Depuy's was pretty clear as well. Doesn't really matter how long it was, you don't need to put your fingers in someone's eye for 20 seconds to do damage, half a second is more than enough.
-KG
Leeners93 September 30, 2010 4:55 pm
TB said:In what other sport do guys receive half season suspensions? It's ridiculous
well,in what other sport do you get unprovoked attacks on people's eyes?
well,in what other sport do you get unprovoked attacks on people's eyes?
Robin Hood September 30, 2010 7:16 pm
@Leeners93
well, archery used to but thanks to long bans they got rid of these attacks. ;)
well, archery used to but thanks to long bans they got rid of these attacks. ;)
Belgian Dave September 30, 2010 8:55 pm
as much as he is obviously a non intelligent player, i do believe the decision was a bit hard; even the commentators didn't mention a ban
(u-p)rick September 30, 2010 10:29 pm
Well, for me, the tackle was just a 'poor' tackle, it looks bad from the back angle, but when you can see Leguizamon's front angle its just a pretty ugly tackle....i wouldnt say it warranted a yellow personally...
....as for the eye gouge,...if you can type you can probably read....so read the description....80 days is MINIMUM!!!!
It was a pretty 'face grabbing' looking gouge, but if you go near the face its tough luck on your penalty...
....as for the eye gouge,...if you can type you can probably read....so read the description....80 days is MINIMUM!!!!
It was a pretty 'face grabbing' looking gouge, but if you go near the face its tough luck on your penalty...
Tom September 30, 2010 11:49 pm
First tackle seemed absolutley fine to me, he wrapped with his arms, guy went flying back, good hit.
The hand on the face, he shouldn't have his hand there at all.
Doesn't look like a gouge at all, he wasn't going for his eyes, just pulling the guy's head back, but you shouldn't be attacking the head at all, in any way.
The hand on the face, he shouldn't have his hand there at all.
Doesn't look like a gouge at all, he wasn't going for his eyes, just pulling the guy's head back, but you shouldn't be attacking the head at all, in any way.
Tom September 30, 2010 11:52 pm
But yeah, 80 days is far too much, he clearly didn't gouge him, just pulled head back. French refs and cting commisioners are too soft.
secondfive October 01, 2010 9:08 am
It's really really simple .. you do not wrap your fingers around the guy's eyes. There are good reasons for the law. Everything else is irrelevant .. intention, damage, nationality, swipe, no swipe, nice guy, not nice guy .. it doesn't matter. If you do it you get the book thrown at you and everybody knows that. His coach should bench him for 80 days just for sheer stupidity.
Obed October 01, 2010 11:13 am
Argentinians act like soccer players, totally uncalled reaction to the ref. Well deserved punishment...
Hackney Griffin October 01, 2010 2:39 pm
80 DAYS!
That is ridiculous and I hope it is over-tunred on appeal. He doesn't gouge the player. He makes contact with his face. In an attempt to remove the player from the maul. It's over-zealous and deserves a penalty.
But it is no way a gouge... and the punishment is an utter crime.
That is ridiculous and I hope it is over-tunred on appeal. He doesn't gouge the player. He makes contact with his face. In an attempt to remove the player from the maul. It's over-zealous and deserves a penalty.
But it is no way a gouge... and the punishment is an utter crime.
irish ref October 01, 2010 3:01 pm
this player needs to calm himself right down. First of all, that attempted decapitation tackle: deserving of red on its own really. It's a very dangerous thing to do, he goes in with his chest and uses his arm in a swinging motion aiming for the opponent's head. No attempt at a legal tackle.
The gouging incident: he would have been suspended for dangerous play even if there was no gouge invovled. We can debate the minutae of what constitutes une fourchette, but grabbing a player in a maul by his head and tugging away for all you're' worth!
The gouging incident: he would have been suspended for dangerous play even if there was no gouge invovled. We can debate the minutae of what constitutes une fourchette, but grabbing a player in a maul by his head and tugging away for all you're' worth!
cheyanqui October 01, 2010 4:40 pm
Rugby should not allow contact which is dangerous to the neck. Grabbing player's heads in the middle of a ruck / maul is dangerous -- pulling a guy back like that (regardless of eye contact or not is very dangerous).
Leguizamon is quite the muppet, at least if you follow him on Rugbydump.
1. The botched try line dive
2. The cheap shot on Chabal
3a. This rugby league hit
3b. This "horse collar" / eye gouge
Leguizamon is quite the muppet, at least if you follow him on Rugbydump.
1. The botched try line dive
2. The cheap shot on Chabal
3a. This rugby league hit
3b. This "horse collar" / eye gouge
Mike October 03, 2010 1:02 am
"flooz wat about the stade prop who got 42 weeks fot making contact with Ferris for 3 hundreds of a second and on top of that there was no credible media evidence. and this from an irish fan"
Bullshit. It is time this myth was killed. There was something like 30 photos of Attoub's finger in Ferris's eye taken over a 3 second period. ONLY ONE WAS RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC. The citing committee saw all of them.
Of course, the photographer was spat at by Stade Francais officials and fans when he was in France the next time, which does not seem fair - he did nothing wrong, he just recorded a crime.
Bullshit. It is time this myth was killed. There was something like 30 photos of Attoub's finger in Ferris's eye taken over a 3 second period. ONLY ONE WAS RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC. The citing committee saw all of them.
Of course, the photographer was spat at by Stade Francais officials and fans when he was in France the next time, which does not seem fair - he did nothing wrong, he just recorded a crime.
Mike October 03, 2010 1:11 am
Stade Francais official spits at photographer:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8426293.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8426293.stm
Tom October 03, 2010 8:28 pm
love how some people's reaction is: "well so and so does it worse and he gets away with it, so why shouldnt this guy"
like saying: "well this guy got away with murder, so why shouldnt we let this guy get off with GBH"
as for this, rugby is a rough sport. we know and love it for that. but there are rules in place for a reason, in fact for exactly that reason. its rough as it is, the players need protection if they're to play for any length of time. you cant keep taking time off for being injured from stupid things like eye gouges.
like saying: "well this guy got away with murder, so why shouldnt we let this guy get off with GBH"
as for this, rugby is a rough sport. we know and love it for that. but there are rules in place for a reason, in fact for exactly that reason. its rough as it is, the players need protection if they're to play for any length of time. you cant keep taking time off for being injured from stupid things like eye gouges.
hernan October 03, 2010 11:30 pm
I'm an argie and this bastard should get banned for the rest of the season
hernan October 03, 2010 11:30 pm
I'm an argie but this guy should get banned for the rest of the season and be tested for cocaine
hernan October 03, 2010 11:31 pm
I'm an argie and this bastard should get banned for the rest of the season
hernan October 03, 2010 11:31 pm
I'm an argie and this bastard should get banned for the rest of the season
Flooz October 04, 2010 9:57 am
To Mike,
"Bullshit. It is time this myth was killed. There was something like 30 photos of Attoub's finger in Ferris's eye taken over a 3 second period. ONLY ONE WAS RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC. The citing committee saw all of them."
everything is in ur comment: do u know a lot of photographer who takes 30 photos durin 5 seconds of the end of a neutral maul or a scrum?
I still doubt about the accusation on attoub as stade franais lawyers have proved to the commission that this "journalist" was a contract worker of Ulster Club...
to conclude, i continue to say that eye-gougin is horrible and coward such like dupuy action.
but i would like an equality in every sanctions than to see IRB crucify top14 players for the example for every type of new hits, eye gougin, shoulder...
"Bullshit. It is time this myth was killed. There was something like 30 photos of Attoub's finger in Ferris's eye taken over a 3 second period. ONLY ONE WAS RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC. The citing committee saw all of them."
everything is in ur comment: do u know a lot of photographer who takes 30 photos durin 5 seconds of the end of a neutral maul or a scrum?
I still doubt about the accusation on attoub as stade franais lawyers have proved to the commission that this "journalist" was a contract worker of Ulster Club...
to conclude, i continue to say that eye-gougin is horrible and coward such like dupuy action.
but i would like an equality in every sanctions than to see IRB crucify top14 players for the example for every type of new hits, eye gougin, shoulder...
Alejandro October 04, 2010 7:35 pm
What pretended to make this animal?, however much you never get your head ripped it off the mole: RED
Anonymous October 12, 2010 11:46 am
What a jerk. And equally worse is the "I am personfied innocence"-face he makes afterwards
Anonymous November 08, 2010 10:56 pm
having been eye gouged before i know it's not nice and isn't something that should be allowed to creep into the game. whether deliberate or not he should never have had his hands anywhere near that area.
browner October 13, 2012 10:25 am
Zero tolerance on all face pulling, whether 'clawed fingers' or not ..................Such a policy would provide clear ground for all perpetrators to steer clear of.
It's interested that players never seem to pull at the mouth? why?? yes we know why .....teeth bite back ....eyes don't !!!
Cowardly and shameful ..................... SEND PROVEN GOUGERS TO JAIL.
It's interested that players never seem to pull at the mouth? why?? yes we know why .....teeth bite back ....eyes don't !!!
Cowardly and shameful ..................... SEND PROVEN GOUGERS TO JAIL.
Commenting as Guest | Register or Login