Tuesday, 19 January 2010

Now THAT'S a ban

What's the betting that David Attoub's 70 week ban for gouging will:

(a) be denounced by Stade President Max Guazzini as "Anti-French" and

(b) be reduced or overturned by the Ligue Nationale de Rugby, meaning Attoub might be allowed to play in the T14?

Neverthless, congratulations must go to Jeff Blackett and his disciplinary panel for growing a pair and imposing a proper sanction for this most cowardly of offences.

Let's just hope it sets a precedent.

9 comments:

Nursedude said...

Wow. I'm even shocked-but pleasantly shocked at the punishment. It will remain to be seen just how many weeks he really is suspended, but I thought it was good news.

Dondon said...

His fellow gouger gor his ban reduced by a week on appeal. Lets hope he gets the week added to his

Anonymous said...

i agree this is a v bad offence that should be tackled.
BUT, my real problem lies in the admission by the judge that he intimely believes there is an offence .... because the account given by attoub is unclear!!!
he believes ....
he is not a priest for god sake but a judge: you dont give 70 weeks sentences on a belief.
This is utterly disguting.

Total Flanker said...

Hmmm, I'm guessing that he probably looked at the evidence, for example:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/18/article-1236999-0799CCE7000005DC-600_468x347.jpg

Number 7 said...

Full disclosure: I'm French

Here's a few comments about this affair:

1) Gouging, together with kicking / stamping on the head of a defenseless payer on the ground, is the vilest act you can perform on a rugby pitch. It must be deterred

2) I'm uneasy with the procedure applied to Attoub, more than the length of the ban. As a previous poster mentioned, if the proofs are so damning, why did the judge have to mention his "intimate conviction" to justify his decision? Then, there is the dishonnesty to say that he is a repeat offender. True, Attoub was disciplined in 2005, but that was for punching, not gouging.

3) For sure, the powers that be wanted to make an example to deter future acts of gouging. It fell on Attoub, tough luck for him, but he shouldn't have put himself in this situation. Even if I'm not happy with the procedure, something had to be done, see my point 1)

4) If anyone got hosed, it's not Attoub, it's Dupuy. I've seen the video 20 times by now, and yes, he puts his hand on Ferris' face twice (which is illegal and reckless) and takes his scrum cap off, but I cannot see any gouging, intentional or not. He should have been disciplined for reckless contact with the face, but 24 (or 23) weeks is a travesty. The panel was over-eager to deter future offences and wanted to make an example, but they picked the wrong guy and the wrong offence. This was very unfair.

5) I read in some quarters that this is an anti-French conspiracy. While I'm having none of this, I do believe there is a difference in treatment depending if the offender hails from the British Isles or not. One of the reason could be that British and Irish media jump at any act of foul play committed by a South African, French, Kiwi, Aussie or Argie against one of their boys. It's even worse if it happens during a Lions tour. Burger was tagged of anything short of being a kid rapist and reading the journos accounts of BOD's shoulder injury in 2005, you would have been forgiven for believing Umaga and Mealamu attempted cold blooded murder

6)Consistency in the suspensions is as badly required as consistency of refereeing at the ruck. Consider this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpqDB1N4GOI

(in case the link doesn't show, search "Hayes stamp" on youtube)

John Hayes stamps a player on the ground several times on the head. For all he knows, he could have blinded or defaced the guy. What does he get? 6 weeks reduced to 5 in appeal. If Attoub got 70 weeks for gouging, Hayes should have received no less for this act of cowardice. Obviously, this got 5 lines in the media and the case was closed in 1 week

Sorry for the rant, had to get it off my chest.

Brilliant blog, by the way.

Sports Master said...

It was very vicious. deserved serious punishment but 70 weeks. The rest of the season would have been sufficient

Lee said...

I think that if you get caught gouging you get a ban - minimum 16 weeks (playing time) and make that a cold/hard fact. No ifs, buts or exceptions.

If all players got lengthy bans for such behaviour that would be a good deterent.

Maybe say you get caught 3 times - you get banned for life.

Its a game - why try and plunge your fingers in to someone else eyes? That realy ugly and cowardly.

anne bebbington said...

Only this morning (31 Jan) there is a news report on the BBC about a player potentially blinded in one eye at a match between Maidstone and Gravesend earlier in January - as I have said before if you went out to a pub and someone deliberately stuck their finger in your eye to potentially blind you they would feel the full force of the law - sight is a precious gift and anyone deliberately endeavouring to jeopardise it should receive a lifetime ban and never be allowed to grace a rugby club with their presence again either as a player or a spectator

Jamey said...

Wow. I even shocked, but shocked in a pleasant punishment. This will still see the number of weeks, he is suspended, but I think this is good news. SEO Services Web Design