@MiketheSnow said in Bokke vs Wales:

This match was part of a two match deal with SA which was brokered pre-Covid

Yes, it was a a beating.

Yes, we’re really poor at the moment.

But like all things sport there’s a lot of recency bias in the aftermath of this drubbing.

A far better Welsh team than the one which played yesterday had an even bigger hiding in Pretoria in 1998

June 1999 - almost exact one year to the day - Wales recorded their first ever win over SA

Perhaps lightning will strike twice

And Rassie played in both matches

It's worth remembering (when wanting to rip WRU in pieces), that this game was meant to be played in 2020 and a little thing called covid killed it, then 2021, ditto with covid. And if Wales hadn't played the test they stood to have to pay SARU $1m.

@nostrildamus said in Bokke vs Wales:

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@Dan54 said in Bokke vs Wales:

I personally would be happy if Esteben was finished as a rugby player after this. Just stupidity of highest order, and I see nothing to gained from seeing him on rugby field again.

Worth noting that in .. something like 140 tests he has never had a red card. Not condoning his actions today, but he is not a dirty player. A moment of madness.

You have a go at someone's eye you are a dirty player. Doesn't matter you wore white underwear on the outside, a cape, and a "Peace Bro!" armband for 139 tests.

Reports are that the panel is split on Etsedeths ban. Some say intentional, others accidental. Happy that they are not immediately calling for his head.
You are assuming he went for the eye intentionally.

FFS

"'The giant lock is said to have pleaded his actions were reckless but "not intentional" during a five-hour hearing on Tuesday night that ran until almost midnight, according to South African outlet Netwerk24.

Such was Etzebeth's defence argument, the independent disciplinary panel were unable to reach agreement on the length of punishment and made the unusual request for more time to consider their punishment.

It is reported a verdict could now come as late as Sunday - over a week after the incident which sickened the Principality Stadium. The decision on whether Etzebeth's action was deliberate or just reckless and unintentional is crucial in terms of the length of sanction.'

My reading is that the panel are split on what should be length of Etzebeth's ban, but not that a ban is appropriate.

Ah, South Africans on the panel are there? Poor old Eben.

@reprobate looking at his facial expression while his thumb was in the eye would seem he was very angry and intent on something....regardless of the level of punishment for Eben, watch WR fuck this one up.

The whole carding and judiciary process is a joke and needs an overhaul, including the TMO.

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

Ah, South Africans on the panel are there? Poor old Eben.

Actually, I don't believe so.

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

Ah, South Africans on the panel are there? Poor old Eben.

Actually, I don't believe so.

Well that's good if so. Intent is a very hard thing to prove or disprove in this situation I would have thought - but really my opinion is as simple as: if you make the decision to attack someone's face, well, that's where their fucking eyes are - and that makes it deliberate.

FFS

Didn't Owen Franks get away with an eye gouge? Against the Wallabies??

I might be going against the grain here, but I'm glad the panel are taking their time and gathering all the available evidence and assessing it before announcing what the ban should be. Let's hope they are being thorough and fair in their police work.

@sparky evidence? How many times do they need to view the footage?

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

Ah, South Africans on the panel are there? Poor old Eben.

Actually, I don't believe so.

Well that's good if so. Intent is a very hard thing to prove or disprove in this situation I would have thought - but really my opinion is as simple as: if you make the decision to attack someone's face, well, that's where their fucking eyes are - and that makes it deliberate.

Not sure if that would make for a fair process though. Accidental contact with the eyes is different than deliberate obviously. This could be a career defining issue for him not to mention the money he will likely lose. I find it hard to believe that he went after his eyes.

@MiketheSnow said in Bokke vs Wales:

FFS

No. Fair treatment under the law. He will get a ban, so calm down.

@Toddy said in Bokke vs Wales:

Didn't Owen Franks get away with an eye gouge? Against the Wallabies??

Yep.

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

Ah, South Africans on the panel are there? Poor old Eben.

Actually, I don't believe so.

Well that's good if so. Intent is a very hard thing to prove or disprove in this situation I would have thought - but really my opinion is as simple as: if you make the decision to attack someone's face, well, that's where their fucking eyes are - and that makes it deliberate.

Not sure if that would make for a fair process though. Accidental contact with the eyes is different than deliberate obviously. This could be a career defining issue for him not to mention the money he will likely lose. I find it hard to believe that he went after his eyes.

My point is that if you can't judge intent accurately - which in most cases you can't - then you need to choose to sanction without regard for it - all deliberate or all accidental.
My preference would be to treat it all as deliberate, unless the player isn't in a position to see that it is a face they are targeting. As soon as it is a face and they know it, fuck 'em all off.

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

Ah, South Africans on the panel are there? Poor old Eben.

Actually, I don't believe so.

Well that's good if so. Intent is a very hard thing to prove or disprove in this situation I would have thought - but really my opinion is as simple as: if you make the decision to attack someone's face, well, that's where their fucking eyes are - and that makes it deliberate.

Not sure if that would make for a fair process though. Accidental contact with the eyes is different than deliberate obviously. This could be a career defining issue for him not to mention the money he will likely lose. I find it hard to believe that he went after his eyes.

My point is that if you can't judge intent accurately - which in most cases you can't - then you need to choose to sanction without regard for it - all deliberate or all accidental.
My preference would be to treat it all as deliberate, unless the player isn't in a position to see that it is a face they are targeting. As soon as it is a face and they know it, fuck 'em all off.

Except now you have to make a discernment on whether the player can see the other players face or not. Look, I wish it were as simple as you would like it to be, but it isn’t. These players earn a living playing the game. They deserve a fair “trial”

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

Ah, South Africans on the panel are there? Poor old Eben.

Isn't there a pretty strong rumour the one saying it unintentional is Welsh?

@taniwharugby said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate looking at his facial expression while his thumb was in the eye would seem he was very angry and intent on something....regardless of the level of punishment for Eben, watch WR fuck this one up.

The whole carding and judiciary process is a joke and needs an overhaul, including the TMO.

How does it get overhauled? I not sure it's ideal, but have not a lot of ideas (that wouldn't get shot to pieces), so would love to hear ideas being discussed.

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

Ah, South Africans on the panel are there? Poor old Eben.

Actually, I don't believe so.

Well that's good if so. Intent is a very hard thing to prove or disprove in this situation I would have thought - but really my opinion is as simple as: if you make the decision to attack someone's face, well, that's where their fucking eyes are - and that makes it deliberate.

Not sure if that would make for a fair process though. Accidental contact with the eyes is different than deliberate obviously. This could be a career defining issue for him not to mention the money he will likely lose. I find it hard to believe that he went after his eyes.

My point is that if you can't judge intent accurately - which in most cases you can't - then you need to choose to sanction without regard for it - all deliberate or all accidental.
My preference would be to treat it all as deliberate, unless the player isn't in a position to see that it is a face they are targeting. As soon as it is a face and they know it, fuck 'em all off.

Except now you have to make a discernment on whether the player can see the other players face or not. Look, I wish it were as simple as you would like it to be, but it isn’t. These players earn a living playing the game. They deserve a fair “trial”

Line of sight is a shitload easier for an outside observer to judge than the evil in Eben's heart mate.
If it is known that the face is off limits, then what wouldn't be fair about it?