So your best argument is to try and route the debate to a completely unrelated incident in a completely unrelated match involving 2 unrelated players....
So a question, If the Scottish player had scratches around his eyes as a result of Ezebeths accidental eye contact and it wasn't caught on camera, you would therefore consider him guilty of eye gouging?
I dont expect you to answer you dumb brick.
Pooooo you have been answered very nicel;y and sensibly by Mike. May I suggest you find your way to the thread where kiwis offer contrite apologies to Bok fans. Hahahahahahahahaha
poi-e
If there was any facial injuries and a complaint from the player concerned - yes it would worsen the evidence in the charge.
By the way - I did not try and sidetrack you from the topic under discussion. I know you are probably living in the Chiefs area and you know Byce Lawrence as well. It was a serious suggestion that somebody should talk to Retallick to get him to play rugby and not the man. It will not be beneficial to his career to carry on like he did recently.
Dear lord I'm gonna need a second to let the stupidity of that last comment waft over me....so by your logic any eye injury in rugby is enough grounds to make an eye gouging accusation, with our without evidence, can an eye injury only happen via a gouge?
Let me remind you what the citing commissioner said on the incident...
SANZAR chief executive Greg Peters said today the commissioner had reviewed video footage of the match from several camera angles not available to the television viewers and had found there was no case to answer.
"The citing commissioner has reviewed it and after that review there was nothing in the video footage that would point to the allegation being substantiated," Peters said.
"The citing commissioner also found it interesting that the Bulls did not follow through with a complaint within the four-hour window after the game."
You need evidence before you can make an accusation stick, the Bulls had none, you have none. The Crusaders were cleared by people more qualified than you, who spent longer reviewing the incident than you with access to more exhibits than you - yet you still think it's a FACT (it isn't) the Crusaders are eye-gougers...fair enough, but don't get all hollier than thou demanding apologies when someone does the same to one of your own you hypocritical twat.
"It was a serious suggestion that somebody should talk to Retallick to get him to play rugby and not the man. It will not be beneficial to his career to carry on like he did recently."
Umm coming from the poster who is defending a Bok player who has had more yellow cards and visits to the citing officer than Retallick this season I find your suggestion more than a tad on the rich side...but again you're a hypocritical twat....
Poo since when did video footage capture everything. All Mike is saying is that Chilli boy didhave marrks around his eyes. How did they get there? H e is not saying there is absolute proof but there is circumstantial evidence to believe something happened. This was very out of character for the bulle to complain.
Realx pooo and enjoy the contrition thread. Bwahahahahaha
*Sigh* Beeno this gif says it better than I can
poi-e
Just one suggestion - get away from the dumb story - because it can rebound easily. You apparently don't understand English properly, In any legal issue - there are citcumstantail evidence that support the charge
laid. Circxumstantial evidence can have a bearing on the outcomes of cases. Not all injuries in the eye area are necessarily the result of eye-gouging - some do Nail scratchmarks around the eye area would definitely point to gouging attempts. However - your feeble accusarion is that I refuse to admit that the Crusaders were innocent - I freely admirtted that - but I am not going to ignore the accusation made by the players and the circumsytial evidence that support their accusation. If they cean get away with the issue through lackof video evidence - then so be it. They got away with it and that is the reason why I would not apologize to the Crusaders. End of story.
I saw Retallick treading a dangerous path recently and my advice were genuine and to the point. Spear tackles are even more dangerous than any other play - and he was found fuiilty of that. He also in the latest test match was not blown up for patent off the ball play - could easily have been. He is building a wrong impression and in his own interest he should be advised to stop doing what he is doing. If the referees ifnore transgessions somebody else is going to give him a well-deserved hiding sooner rather than later.
.
Then you're in no place to ask anyone else to apologise for their stance on Eben when you're doing exactly the same thing to the Crusaders #hyprocrite1
Second of all you're on no place to advise Retallick to adjust his behaviour when you're defending a player who's most recent trip to the judiciary was this week #hyprocrite2
Third of all, I can understand English better than you can write it pal "Circxumstantial ", "citcumstantail ", "circumsytial" #dumbbrick
