Wednesday Oct 4, 2017 Kyle Sinckler handed seven week ban for making contact with the eyes

Kyle Sinckler handed seven week ban for making contact with the eyes
6
Comments

Harlequins prop Kyle Sinckler was last night handed a 7-week ban after a RFU disciplinary panel found him guilty of making contact with the eye and/or eye area of Michael Paterson during the Aviva Premiership clash with Northampton Saints last weekend.

Sinckler accepted the charge of contact with the eye and was given a seven week suspension by the independent panel. He is free to play again on the 21 November 2017

The Chairman of the panel Dan White said: “The panel heard evidence from the player as to his actions. They found that it was an intentional action but that due to the absence of injury it merited a low end entry point.

“The player has not got a clear record because of a suspension in 2015 and so the panel could not give full mitigation. The player will therefore be suspended for seven weeks and is free to play again on the 21 November 2017”

Sinckler released a statement after the outcome of the disciplinary hearing.

“I accept the outcome of the hearing and wanted to go on record to say I am sorry that I have let my team mates down, but more importantly I feel terrible that anyone would think I would deliberately gouge an opponent. That was never my intention – it was a genuine mistake and an act of recklessness on my part.
 
“I will spend the next seven weeks working hard on my fitness and rugby to ensure that when I am able to get back on the field I am fit and ready to do so and make the best possible contribution to Quins,” he said.

The England front rower will therefore miss selection for autumn internationals against Argentina and Australia, but be available for the November 25th Test match against Samoa at Twickenham.

6 Comments

  •  im1
    im1

    I've just read the full report and video. I take back what I have said above. Its a gouge for me. Not the worst gouge. But he applied pressure to the eye.

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    I will rightly or wrongly assume sinckler wasn't in a position to damage his opponents eyes, but players have to be properly thrown under the bus if they get anywhere near eyes because of the potential. Hypothetically however sinckler could have scratched Patersons eye, could have scratched any area surrounding the eye (eye lid etc) it's just an unnecessary dick move that I'd be happy to be smashed as a result... But sure, maybe don't call it 'gouging' unless it is actually gouging but the bans should be the same.

    Reply
  •  im1
    im1

    In terms of players being blinded, I don't see hhow Sinkler's actions could have blinded Paterson, or even caused moderate damage. Certaininly nothing permanant, which is why I think its unfair to call it gouging I think blinding/serious damange occurs when a player really has a go at the eye and that is what gouging is. People who do that should be banned for life, serve time in prison for it and when they get out they should have to do community service as a tackle bag for the club of the player which they blinded

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    I'm happy with not adding extra grey areas, fingers near eyes = ban, job done.... I know this might be quite drastic but reading about players being blinded makes me so disgusted and frankly an instant big ban should be handed, no mitigating circumstances like "no injury" the only mitigating circumstances should be something like he reached for the ball and grabbed a players face by accident for a split second, or something like that...

    Reply
  •  im1
    im1

    i think the law is badly written. The offence for making contact with the eye covers everythign from just touching it to a full on gouge. I think there should be 3 offences; 1. Contact with the eye area (as there is now) 2. Contact with the eye (as there is now) 3. Gouging The 3rd one is covered under 2 at the moment, but I think a distinction should be made more explicitly rather than by a low/middle/high split of the contct with the eye offence. The act of putting his fingers/hand on the eye was intentional, but I wouldn't call that gouging.

    Reply
  •  nhunter
    nhunter

    Contradiction here in the wording of both post-analysis statements. Panel says it was 'intentional', player says it wasn't 'deliberate' and 'not his intention'. Leaves an impression of a big lack of contrition post-announcement of the ban from the player. Also, indecisive wording from the panel - they've found him guilty of gouging, one of the most serious inter-player offences in rugby, but he wasn't able to cause injury, so sentence is reduced. I appreciate the full statements on both sides might not be published here, but this seems a little odd from all sides.

    Reply

Great Tries

View All

Big Hits & Dirty Play

View All

See It To Believe It

View All

Funnies

View All

Training Videos

View All

Player Features

View All
Kyle Sinckler handed seven week ban for making contact with the eyes | RugbyDump