Dupuy in trouble?

[Tigerbeat]

Did not see all of the Ulster game but Will Greenwood analysed the match and showed something from Dupuy that did not look very pretty at all - contact with the eye area of an Ulster player, not just once.........but twice.

Expect a citing to coming in the next few days.

[Darc Tiger]

Very disappointing...

This looks serious.

[heyharri]

Perhaps his girlfriend is unhappy and not seeing enough of him. She will do now. Six months ban ? At this stage, I can't see what defence he will be able to offer.

Silly lad. Will probably miss the 6N's. Just as he had everything going for him too.

[WhitecapTiger]

Tigerbeat beat me to it!

He will be in a lot of trouble for that one, he'd already been yellow carded during the match for a late/off the ball shoulder charge, and after 'scratching' Ferris' eye area, appeared to keep hold of his head whilst looking round, then did it again!!

Gallic frustration at being beaten by a superior (on the day) Ulster team.

Can his earlier yellow card be used against him if/when he is cited for these incidents? I don't know, but both 'gouges' were caught clearly on camera, there appears to be nowhere for him to hide.

Bad bad acts by julien, Stade typically descended into disarray, I think JD can expect to be warming a seat for a long long time.

Shame, but not much sympathy for him on this occasion.

[Bill W (2)]

Looked bad to me. Two goes at it having checked to Ref wasn't looking.

[westwinds31]

No place for that on a rugby field - disgraceful.

[kingol22]

not much you can say just stupid.

[Bud]

Should be a massive ban looming. Incredibly stupid.

[Cliffeclimber]

Surely all the players must realise by now that nothing they do on the field will be missed by the cameras. It's no good looking to see whether the ref is watching if the whole world will be seeing your misdeeds within minutes.

There's no defence to eye-witness evidence.

[Crumby]

glad we let him go after watching that - should never happen, deserves every thing hes going to get.

[Bill W (2)]

But Dupuy is French.

So if ERC give him a substantial ban, following the Tincu precedent (effectively unchallenged by IRB) CNOSF could rule it does not apply to French national games.

What a laugh!

[Tigerbeat]

Is it not different in the case of Dupuy?- it is clearly seen by the cameras.

Tincu was not clearly shown to be offending?

[Moose]

Not sure, but if i recall correctly, Tincu was found guilty (which one assumes means that the judging panel found the evidence compelling enough), but the ban was deemed to be irrelevant outside of the HC. That's the case as far as I remember it - Bill, help me out if I'm wrong on any of the points (like you need asking )

[Bill W (2)]

Not sure, but if i recall correctly, .......... Bill, help me out if I'm wrong on any of the points (like you need asking )

Tigerbeat is correct that Tincu was convicted on the evidence of his accuser (who retaliated) rather than any direct video evidence (other than of the retaliation). I am not aware of any evidence (in the public domain) that CNOSF were swayed by these facts. They ruled that ECR did not have jurisdiction over French National Sport (despite IRB regulations). IRB then considered the matter, referred it to a committee, and did nothing. Tincu played in France for the rest of the season.

Prima facie there is no reason why they could not so rule on any ban applied to Julian indeed even more so since Julian is French and Tincu is not. Further, since Tincu's accuser was not punished for his retaliation Julian could argue that he was retaliating for an offence unseen by the cameras.

A muggers buddle!

[WhitecapTiger]

Bill W(2) wrote "Further, since Tincu's accuser was not punished for his retaliation Julian could argue that he was retaliating for an offence unseen by the cameras."

I agree with what you say Bill, and he may well be able to argue that for the first offence, responding in the heat of the moment for a bit of unseen skullduggery etc, but after looking around to see if anyone was watching, taking time to consider his actions, he then did it again, to an apparently non-retaliatory Ferris, no defence in my book, but I fear you may be right that some will try to defend the indefensible, and if/when that fails just ignore the powers (?) that be!!