posted Oct 7, 2008

>>> 2. Haskell was able to play on for a significant part of the game before complaining of his injury. <<<


Haskell was fairly rapidly treated at the time, treated again at half time, and then went to hospital after the game.

In another recent gouging case, Andy Kyriacou of Saracens was caught twice in the eye by Rabeni, but played on for some time before being subbed off as he could no longer see out of that eye.

The delay is partly caused by injries swelling up, further obscuring vision.


It's also partly caused by rugby players trying to continue playing for their team. It's not uncommon for players who should be off the pitch recieving CAT scans to still be charging around for the full 80.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 7, 2008

>>> If it was an accident then why is he being punished at all? <<<

Read the judgement.

The relevant passages have been posted on this thread already.

..........................

[The Panel] accepted that the Player had not intentionally searched for Haskell’s eye but had tried to grab somewhere on his head to pull him up and backwards. Initial contact with his eye was, therefore, reckless.

However, the Panel does not accept the Player’s account that contact with the eye was "fleeting".Haskell’s evidence was very clear and compelling that the fingers had been in his eye for more than fleeting contact. [Haskell's] explanation that he felt the finger in his eyes pulling him upward was consistent with observations of the video, and the injuries described were not consistent with fleeting contact for a millisecond.

The Panel, therefore, determined that after the Player’s finger went into Haskell’s eye he must have known where it was because the feel of an eye is unique. He then deliberately maintained contact with the eye area to force Haskell to release the ball and move backwards and he pulled Haskell’s head upwards by the eye socket.

The Panel also accepted that the incident occurred very quickly and although the Player deliberately maintained contact with the eye area to pull Haskell there was no intention to cause serious injury.

..........................

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 7, 2008

As Haskell has been involved with this type of thing before,has he got an odd shaped head which lends itself to this type of injury on the rugby field????

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 7, 2008

He's just got really big eyes.

Like Marty Feldman.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 7, 2008

So Best's appeal has been thrown out. I feel this is a reasonable judgement so long as the the diciplinary panels remain consistant or maybe, more importantly, they give clear public statments as to why they have made their decision.

The video evidence hung Best. the guy hooked his fingers in the guys eyesocket and then deliberatley pulled his head back. I think its fair justice.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 7, 2008

The whole area of mitigation has to be cleared up so it is consistent.
You can't apply mitigation and a player's character because it is such a grey area than can so easily be manipulated.
The clubs, almost as a matter of course now, use the defence of a player not meaning to do what he did, which is ridiculous.
Haskell charging in with violent intent was OK because he was defending a mate who wasn't being protected by the ref.
Its a system and a disciplinary code that is bent all out of shape.
Either Best didn't mean it, and nor did Haskell, and thats reason for reducing the punishment, or they were both guilty of foul play, unmitigated by intent, in which case they both get the book thrown at them.
If motive is a factor, then it should be an equal factor across the board!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 7, 2008

Having seen the video evidence I think 18 weeks was light considering it could have been up to 3 years.
What astounds me is that players still feel they can play outside the law of the game.
These guys are role models for the next generation of kids coming through. Before long we'll be bak to the barbaric sport played 100 years ago.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 7, 2008

if the panel deemed it was not deliberate then how can they give 18 weeks for what they describe as an accident

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 7, 2008

Having too seen the video evidence, I think that Northampton were dumb, at best, ill informed to apppeal.

Personally he should have been banned for life. Luck of teh Irish I guess!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 7, 2008

I agree with the rugby pundits in that the punishment for an ACCIDENT is indeed very severe.

add comment | complain about this comment