Ryan Wilson gets off?

[Chobbsy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43229591
Wow to me on the play back there was a definite attempt to rake across the eye, before anyone starts the abuse, that is just MY opinion

[Stephen18]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43229591
Wow to me on the play back there was a definite attempt to rake across the eye, before anyone starts the abuse, that is just MY opinion

Although it true he makes contact with the eye, i dont think his trying to rake the eyes, just trying to get a 20stone bloke off him who had him by the throat. I think to be honest both should have been cited, you cant coak people on a rugby pitch. So you either had to ban them both or neither.

[Wayne Richardson Fan Club]

Nigel asked them if there was a problem, they both said no, that should if been end of it.
The citing should of been both or neither, dealt with on field of play, pretty sure if Hughes thought he had been gouged he would of said something.
Its almost as if the citing officer was trying to justify their existence.

[Flash]

Pretty sure Ashton got banned for less.

[JP14]

Pretty sure Ashton got banned for less.

damnnnnnn

[sam16111986]

It's an odd decision as it's completely at odds with any other citing commisson ruling in recent years. Some players have copped bans for reckless contact with eye area for an awful lot less.

[strawclearer]

It's an odd decision as it's completely at odds with any other citing commisson ruling in recent years. Some players have copped bans for reckless contact with eye area for an awful lot less.

I'm not sure the citing process could be accused of consistency or common sense.

[johnthegriff]

There is absolute consistency, Celtic league players innocent or lesser sentences despite the evidence, English or French players guilty with hefty sentences even if there is no evidence. Remember Cozza being banned after Julian White had been accused, when they realised it could not possibly have been Jules unless he had arms like Mr Tickle they decided it must have been Martin Correy even though there was no evidence of any hands coming into contact with an Osprey's eye.

[biffer]

There is absolute consistency, Celtic league players innocent or lesser sentences despite the evidence, English or French players guilty with hefty sentences even if there is no evidence. Remember Cozza being banned after Julian White had been accused, when they realised it could not possibly have been Jules unless he had arms like Mr Tickle they decided it must have been Martin Correy even though there was no evidence of any hands coming into contact with an Osprey's eye.

Well that’s one of the biggest pieces of nonsense I’ve read in a while.

[sam16111986]

It's an odd decision as it's completely at odds with any other citing commisson ruling in recent years. Some players have copped bans for reckless contact with eye area for an awful lot less.

I'm not sure the citing process could be accused of consistency or common sense.

Fair point.

[johnthegriff]

Biffer it might be nonsense but it is my opinion. The facts are there, Perpignan hooker no evidence but eighteen weeks ban, incidentally accused by the same Ospreys player who accused Julian White then changed his mind to Martin Corry, Mickey Youngs (I think it was) accused by an Ulster player, no evidence and the accuser couldn't even be bothered to turn up at the tribunal and changed his written statement but an eight week ban. Julian Dupuy 21 weeks for a blatant gouging, a fair enough sentence but Quinlan for just as bad an offence got 11 weeks.
This disparity in the sentencing was possibly a factor in club rugby wanting to end ERC's administration of the European Cup and move its base away from Ireland.

[wormus]

It's an odd decision as it's completely at odds with any other citing commisson ruling in recent years. Some players have copped bans for reckless contact with eye area for an awful lot less.

Yes Owen Williams came off the bench and was promptly accused of eye gouging against Saints, I think it was Burrell totally inconsistent as Tom Youngs had disregarded a Saints offence earlier.

[Tiger_in_Birmingham]

I'm astounded that he wasn't found guilty. I don't think there was any intent or malice to specifically go for the eyes, he was only looking to try and get the man off him, but there was clearly contact with the eye area. The panel sais that eye contact was made however due to Wilson's strapped fingers he didn't have control and that 'it was reckless'. Isn't reckless contact with the eye area exactly what other people have been suspended for?

As for some of the other posts - Corry was clearly doing something to wind Hibbard up, IMO he was looking for a reaction so that Hibbard would swing for him and get carded, as it was Hibbard just about kept his cool. As for naming Julian that wasn't any of the players, that was Jiffy when walking into the changing room and being told about the contact with the eyes he said White's name without being told anything about who it might have been.

Williams got done for reckless contact when he tried to do a croc roll (when they were allowed around the neck) and his hand slipped up and over the face including the eyes. Rambo got cited and suspended for catching the head/eyes when trying to jackal the ball.

In my opinion Wilson should have received 1 week - guilty plea, mitigating circumstances etc but still made contact with the eyes. Making it 1 week would mean he wouldn't miss any games so would show that the system isn't too lenient but recognises that this instance was the most minimal of occurrances.

[mightymouse]

Whether or not other people have been wrongly sentenced he should not have been. If you look back at the footage from the start Hughes deliberately lies on him preventing him getting up from the previous breakdown then he pushes a hand it his chest. Wilson retaliates in an odd way by wrapping his legs around Hughes. Hughes further escalates it by grabbing him by the throat and trusting downwards then stands up with continued pressure on his throat. Wilson reacts as any human being would by trying to push him off flailing desperately at his face. He did not contact his eyes.

Personally I have always felt that when someone is sent off or sin binned for retaliation then the original perpetrator should get at least equal punishment otherwise you are rewarding the wind up merchants and asking them to continue their nefarious ways.

In this instance Owens was very sensible about the way he dealt with it and although it was correctly looked at by the citing officers they also have made the sensible decision.

The only thing I would add to that is that the officials should send in writing, so that it is recorded, a letter to Wilson to say he needs to be careful where he puts his hands in future and a similar letter to hughes to say that this type of antagonistic play will not be tolerated. After a while the real trouble makers will build up a record that can be santioned.
It seems Wilson was being targeted possibly as England had identified him as a hot head likely to react. Farrell started this by the shoving and barging in the tunnel prior to the match hence the flare up there

[Tiger_in_Birmingham]

Whether or not other people have been wrongly sentenced he should not have been. If you look back at the footage from the start Hughes deliberately lies on him preventing him getting up from the previous breakdown then he pushes a hand it his chest. Wilson retaliates in an odd way by wrapping his legs around Hughes. Hughes further escalates it by grabbing him by the throat and trusting downwards then stands up with continued pressure on his throat. Wilson reacts as any human being would by trying to push him off flailing desperately at his face. He did not contact his eyes.

As per the findings of the panel Wilson did make contact with the eye area, they even clarified that it was reckless and not intentional. I'm not sure how they then went on to find that this didn't fall foul of law 9.12 nor Regulaton 17 as numerous other players have done exactly the same thing (no malice nor intent) yet they got suspended.

Once again the citing process is shown to be random and not evidence based.

Personally I have always felt that when someone is sent off or sin binned for retaliation then the original perpetrator should get at least equal punishment otherwise you are rewarding the wind up merchants and asking them to continue their nefarious ways.

Retaliation has always been dealt with more severely than the original infringement. Referees have been mandated to start looking at some of the niggle - e.g. taking men out beyond the ruck, pulling them in when they're the first defender