Letter of the week

Planet Rugby readers are never short of an opinion and our mail box is seldom empty.

Planet Rugby readers are never short of an opinion and our mail box is seldom empty. The Letter of the Week is your chance to air your views and get published.

Do you have an opinion you'd like to share with the world? Reckon you can express it in a coherent, balanced argument? Well, send it to us! The best letters will get some time in the spotlight.

Please note that the views expressed in readers' letters to not necessarily reflect those of Planet Rugby.

This week's letter comes from Brian Donnelly :

Eye wouldn't if I were you

Leo Cullen (Leinster), Stephen Ferris (Ulster), Luke Fitzgerald (British & Irish Lions) and Christian Day (Northampton Saints), what have they in common? Christian Day, the last named and the newest addition to the list has probably given it away and yes, they are all (relatively) recent recruits to an unwanted club in professional rugby, eye gouging victims.

I selected these cases off the top of my head from memory but there have been a depressingly steady number of recruits to this club every season regardless of the seemingly universal contempt for the practice. And I am aware that many better qualified writers have been here before now, often beating the zero tolerance line.

Yet it goes on and it is not easy to determine why, is it the only form of intimidation left in a heavily policed professional world? Is it simply part of the culture as in France (read John Daniel's description of being both victim and perpetrator of “La Fourchette” and you will become graphically familiar with the practice) or is it simply that the end increasingly justifies the means, keeping the eye on the prize, if you excuse the pun.

So two thoughts struck me. Firstly lets examine the current process and for the sake of the piece consider the duly charged and convicted culprits in each of the above cases. Now I don't propose to rake over old ground here with cases that have been dealt with other than to consider the sanctions meted out. Respectively the guilty parties were Alan Quinlan (Munster – 12 week ban thus missing the 2009 Lions tour), Julien Dupuy & David Attoub (Stade Francais – 24 and 70 weeks respectively), Schalk Burger (South Africa – 8 weeks) and Mark Cueto (Sale Sharks – 9 weeks).

All were caught and punished, fine, but a bewildering and inconsistent array of bans were handed out. For example Stade Francais prop David Attoub's huge 70 week-ban (the second largest ever handed out) was for what was described at the time by the disciplinary officer “as the worst act of contact with the eyes that I have had to deal with”. Very good in itself but you have to wonder if the sliding scale of punishments is actually part of the problem here?

Why are some offences deemed “mid-range” for example, as the most recent, Cueto's, has been and others top or bottom end of the criminal scale. Would it not be more sensible to simply deem ALL contact or attempted contact with the eyes to be an offence punished by a IRB imposed and globally consistent sanction without discretion or appeal ? Clarence Harding, the Gravesend player who lost the sight in his right eye after an alleged gouging last year serves as a stark reminder of the possible consequence of any such action.

Were this imposed there might be cases where somebody gets punished incorrectly but I bet the message would get across pretty quickly, stay away from the eyes. Having a scale of punishments therefore may be leading to the belief among some that, with a good lawyer and perhaps a faltering will to stamp down hard on the offence for whatever reason, the risk in indulging in this practice is worth taking, food for thought?

The second point concerns the employers, the Clubs or Unions concerned. Everybody says this is a despicable practice and everybody says they want to see it eradicated completely yet it continues. The punishments being handed out to the individual culprits are inconsistent so lets think about other sanctions. If Directors of Rugby or National Coaches were truly committed to these principles it might help. I am not suggesting that they condone gouging but perhaps it does not register highly enough on their very cluttered management radar.

So how to get a bit more of that team meeting or locker room time? Well for a start hefty fines might help focus minds financially. Competitive points deductions or forfeit of matches in knock-out tournaments would certainly make coaches squeal and get the zero tolerance message across and the ultimate sanction, a competition ban, absolutely would have everybody connected, from owners, media partners, coaches, players and supporters engaged.

We all say we want to see this practice eradicated once and for all. I believe the way to do it exists but is there really the will?