Should Jannie du Plessis have been red carded for eye-gouging?

Bismarck du Plessis’s infamous red card may have had South African fans up in arms, but they can be equally as releived that his brother Jannie inexplicably got away with what looks like blatant eye gouging on Australian hooker Stephen Moore. Watch the incident below:

What do you think? Should he have been sent off?

20 thoughts on “Should Jannie du Plessis have been red carded for eye-gouging?

  1. About as obvious an eye gouge as you will ever see, no question that in the NH it would have been a sraight red and if not spotted at the time cited and a very long ban

  2. Disgusting and cowardly. Should have been a red if spotted. Definitely should be cited and given a long, long ban.

    As an aside, thought Hooper was unlucky to get a card and Alberts lucky not to get one for retaliation

  3. Bringing this wonderful game into disrepute, as blatant as you will ever see!! Ban for a very long time no place for it.

  4. Well I complained bitterly when Bismark was wrongly sin binned for his tackle on Dan Carter, however his brothers action was disgraceful and he should be cited and receive a long ban for this. No excuse, it was blatant! How it was not picked by TMO, Slomo is beyond me!

  5. If indeed it transpired, as it seemed to be amplified by the bad quality video footage, such a player very well deserves to spend a long time in the cooler! And an outcry about such, would indeed be necessary and should be pursued as well. For that, the evidence of the injured party (if incurred), and a medical report would suffice to end all speculation and put this rightfully in the category where such behaviour belong. However, when the player was prodded about the incident, he was aggrieved by what Vermeulen did and not the good doctor! Did he make contact with the eye / eye area, or the side of the face with his fingers as a doctor would do? Could we, from the relative comfort of our offices or living rooms make such a judgement? Should we not rather have an outcry over repeated foul play like in this videoclip? and get the adjudicators to eradicate that from the sport and be evenhanded in such? Would it not help us, the supporters and has-beens to be likewise evenhanded in our own evaluations and judgements?

    1. Agree that Nonu’s shoulder charges are dangerous, but that doesn’t really have anything to do with this incident.

      Moore was likely aggrieved by what Vermuelen did and not Jannie because the latter came from behind and gouged him, meaning he couldn’t see him. Also, his reaction towards Jannie certainly suggests he took issue with it!

      Also what does being a doctor have to do with anything?! Everyone knows the potential consequences of gouging, not just doctors. The footage is pretty clear – it was a disgusting act that should be punished.

    2. “or the side of the face with his fingers as a doctor would do” – what? Are you trying to suggest he was using his medical expertise here and in fact what appears to us non-medics as a cheap shot is in fact a recognised medical technique for removing players from a fracas?

      As for the citing of Nonu and the attempt to deflect attention from Jannie by pointing at other fouls – oh dear, the permanent cry of the guilty. “Yes, I may well have tried to rip that guys eyes out but why does that guy over there get away with shoulder charges?”. The answer to that is simple, cite and ban them both. Cite and ban anyone doing anything illegal, deliberate and dangerous.

      So it’s irrelevant to mention “evenhanded in our own evaluations and judgements” as nobody has suggested anything different. The only person who seems to be even suggesting anything that approaches an uneven approach is you with your mention of Jannie being a doctor, as if that gives him some entitlements the rest of us do not understand.

      When you say “Should we not rather have an outcry…” you betray your true intentions here, which are to try and defend Jannie with some pseudo-intellectual rant coupled with an overuse of elongated grammatical constructs (so have that one back at you), as by saying “rather” you clearly think we should move on from Jannie and get back to citing Nonu because … well, we all know why. Cos Nonu isn’t a Bok. So I repeat myself, cite them both and let’s see what the inquiry finds. However, do not ever try and tell me that a bad shoulder charge ever comes close to behind the back eye gouging. One is reckless, dangerous and quite possibly a per-meditated attempt to hurt someone in contact. The other is the sort of stuff I expect to see in a 3am brawl outside a kebab shop.

  6. @Jamie, his reaction was directed at Vermeulen! Not at Jannie. Try and find
    @Brightly, sorry to burst your bubble, but I have no issue here, maybe you have! I do agree totally with the fact that, on the face of it, both should have been sent for a lengthy cool down year, or even longer. But not only that, their pockets should also be negatively affected. What I tried to point out, was that repeated serial offenders are often overlooked by the officialdom and it is incomprehensible as to why. The sponsors lately, seems to have seen it differently. Is that why someone did not get a super contract for the next season? I doubt if any of the top clubs in Europe would be queuing for his services either. On the other hand …. what does the record of Du Plessis look like over the number of years that he has been playing at the top? What’s more, what does his opponents say and think of him? (hint?)

  7. I have been gouged. It sucks. I hope he gets banned for at least a year. It’s one of the worst things a player can do on a rugby pitch.

  8. There’s pretty clear footage from the front (all be it from a distance) that is equally as damning as that shown here. Seems as clear a case of gouging as you’ll ever see. There’s even a WTF expression on Etzebeth’s face.

    Agree that Hooper was unlucky here. Can’t see what else he could have done given that Etzebeth tried to jump him (that used to be illegal one upon a time!) and Albert’s back slam could have been yellow card material.

    Heyneke’s PR job has done a trick with these Boks because they seem to be getting away with a lot at the moment.

    1. I would agree with RJS that there was look of WTF on Ethzebeth face when it happened. The facts are there for all to see. Janni put his hand around Moores face and pulled his hand back across his face.Dont get me wrong, i am not a fan of Australia and definitely not Moore, however we dont need this in Rugby ! He could easily have put his fingers in Moore eyes whether deliberate or not! Not sure if Boks are getting away with much either, re Bismark v All Blacks which is well recorded as being a monumental error of judgement. However all under the bridge and we can now go to Ellis Park and enjoy the game on the week end.

  9. We rightly complained when Bismark was wrongly sin binned, however we cant have it both ways. JANNI actions were dangerous and a disgrace. For me it should be revied and he should receive a long ban!Amazing that the commentators and in studio experts did not even mention it!

  10. Sorry Bill, but I have to seriously disagree with you here. If is clear, even from the bad footage, that Du Plessis fingers was on the side of Moore’s hand! But the key to it, no not what Stransky and Co remarked, is that Moore himself had not complained about it. He complained about Vermeulen! Alberts on the other hand got involved both at Eden Park with Nonu and here with Hooper. He should have taken a walk, not Hooper! I really feel for Hooper as Ethsebeth did appear to be jumping into the tackle. In this game Alberts reacted and created the fracas, as much as he overreacted at Eden Park, just watch the footage! He needs to cool down!

  11. “that Du Plessis fingers was on the side of Moore’s hand!” should be …… that Du Plessis fingers was on the side of Moore’s head!

  12. Hi Jan, I have watched the footage many times and for me Jannie put his hand around Moores face and the fact that he may well have run his hand back over Moores forehead , is neither here nor there. For me the intent was there and you could tell by the tone of Joel and Owens voice that they also thought the same thing. Anyway we agree to disagree. I think that Ethsebeth needs to cool down . I think he thinks he is Backies! Anyway lets look forward to this week end I hope we beat the All Blacks. Not to much worrying about bonus as that will be difficult but to win is a must!

  13. The law doesn’t refer to gouging. An intentional gouge comes under serious foul play, but fingers in the eye or eye area, which is pretty blatant, whether he gouged or not, is definitely there. Mark Cueto got a 13 week ban for something far more innocuous and he’s lucky to avoid a ban here.

Comments are closed.