Video: Aurelien Rougerie gouging Richie McCaw

Gouging is a heinous crime, and in a Rugby World Cup final with billions of people watching, it’s even worse.

With anything but consistency, we’ve seen all sorts of bans handed out for gouging, so it’s anyone’s guess what Rougerie will get for this – what do you think?

34 thoughts on “Video: Aurelien Rougerie gouging Richie McCaw

  1. No place for it – deserves a long ban, but as has been previously mentioned, hasn’t the citing deadline been and gone? If this is the case, will he get away scott free? Absolutely wrong if he does.

    Can’t understand why there haven’t been any other citings after the final – it’s almost as if the IRB/RWC want to wash their hands of the tournament after the final and pretend nothing happened.

  2. He has been great in this tournament, but there is absolutely no place for this type of foul play in rugby. He deserves a long ban.

  3. I think you’re right, the citing period probably has been and gone. Officials caught up in celebrating the All Blacks’ victory perhaps?!

    Surely someone can do something about it though…6-month ban?

        1. You’re not far wrong Cramps. It’s only when we clamp down on these abuses, that they will think twice. I wouldn’t have too much sympathy for McCaw. Great player but he’s gouged before himself I think. It’s the AB’s that started up allot of this dirty behaviour. Spear tackling should have already been ruthlessly punished before the WC. O’Driscoll wasn’t the same player after Umaga and the other tug got him, and Warburton would have thought twice if he knew the odds. If we don’t get this out of the game now, we risk turning rugby into a padded nanny-game later.

          1. do you have anything to support the claim that Richie McCaw has eye gouged someone?

            Eye Gouging is never ok.

  4. I have 2 questions :

    They first say it was Dussautoir .. now Rougerie .. I am quite sure they are right .. but how they know for sure ?

    It would be relevant to have a full review of all “brutality” that occurs in a Rugby game.
    (It is too easy to take a small part even if it is unaceptable and the worst)
    It is pure brutality or it is a crescendo

  5. Have a tribunal, decide if there was intent (it certainly looks intended), if there was, life ban. I don’t care how many other similar incidents there have been; if they were overly leniently treated then giving that leniency to this incident as well does not make things right.

    I also don’t care how “brutal” the game was overall. Each incident of brutality should be judged on it’s own merits. This could have blinded McCaw. I’m not a fan of the offside-living cheat but gouging is not acceptable, no matter what he did.

    Life ban for Rougerie.

  6. France have fallen massively in my estimation during this RWC. Their blase and cavalier attitude during the tournament, (see the Tonga match where they looked like they just didnt want to be there and couldnt be bothered); doing the bare minimum to win; playing a cynical, point-conserving, defensive game in almost every match, childish spats between Lievremont and the team, to say nothing of the whole footballing melodramatics by Clerc after that red card. And to think they cried foul over Warburton’s tackle. And now this. Cheating bastards. Laughable how all the pundits were saying how wonderful Rougerie was. Totally unscrupulous and a bloody disgrace.

    1. Rougerie is a great player, but has gone down in my estimation now. This all explains the actions of New Zealan after the final, not offering commiserations to France, and it explains Dusaoutoir on the stage accepting the award “Yesterday, I did not wan to talk to them after the game” or some other such. I felt wronged that McCaw pointed the finger at him I think. So maybe Rougerie didn’t even step up and admit he was the infringer.

      I’m disappointed at France. Normally, we Northerners are not so thug-like. That’s the SH teams :)
      I’m happy it wasn’t Dusautoir. Never doubted him though!

  7. France were great in the final but I find it bizarre that England have got far worse press over here in NZ. France played more boring rugby, had an all out mutiny, a coach who was very quotable but a total fruitcake and had an eye gouging incident. All England di was have a night on the piss, swap 2 rugby balls around (hardly a capital offence) and be equally crap on the pitch. Yet over here until the last couple of days they all still love the French and lay into the English. Just goes to show that once people have made up their mind about a person, team or nation and have an axe to grind, they will fit the evidence accordingly.

    Some idiot called Peter Bills even wrote in one paper that England’s world cup performance was a symptom of the rotten decline of the nation as a whole. He also, having slagged England off for being boring for weeks said that they should not have tried to be more expansive against France and had played a stupid game plan. Basically whatever England did was wrong, no matter if it meant completely contradicting himself. Can’t believe a bloke like that is even given a forum to express his views, let alone national newspaper article.

    Anyway, back to the gouging. To use the IRB’s phrase on spear tackles, bans should start at 2 years and work backwards. There can be no mitigating circumstances, can’t reduce it for a clean record- if you’re a gouger you’re a gouger no matter whether you have never even given away a penalty before. Matt Stevens got 2 years for taking recreational drugs- they weren’t performance enhancing and it didn’t hurt anybody but himself. How can risking blinding someone be any better, or in Schalk Burger’s case 13 times better than that?

    1. Stu, to explain the press, I’ve finally had the mentality of the kiwi media explained to me. Imagine a jilted lover. She thought you were the one. And the night she thought you were going to propose, you dumped her. Since then, she’s done really well, A great job, lots of money, perhaps even a loving relationship. But, no matter how successful, she’s always going to be bitter about you.

    2. “swap 2 rugby balls around (hardly a capital offence)” -> no, not a capital offence, but a fairly shabby and cold blooded attempt at cheating.The issue isn’t whether swapping a ball is a heinous crime, the issue is that they knew it was against the rules so concocted a cold blooded pre-match plan to break those rules. This wasn’t a rule break during the run of play, this was a management concocted plan to cheat. I was amazed they got off as lightly as they did.

      I agree the Kiwi press were completely over the top about England, as were England’s own media, but I do think the players didn’t help themselves. A full on falling down night on the piss after beating your first minnow at the world cup doesn’t paint you as any sort of professional sportsman. It’s a World Cup, how hard would it be to keep a lid on it for a few weeks?

  8. The deadline for report has passed.Richie said that he did get poked in the eye but he didn’t know if it was intentional – he s modest man with a lot of humility – that s his way of saying yeah i got eye gouged IMO.

    The All Blacks have said they aren t going to report it – they are too busy celebrating. Also, there s the old saying ‘what happens on the field stays in the field’. Its part of the mentality I guess.

    1. The AB’s not reporting on this is a reflection of their own shabby standards of what is acceptable on the pitch. They let too much go on. Rougerie needs to be disciplined for this. If Warbuton gets cited and Rougerie doesn’t, then that’s wrong. As long as Rougerie gets cited..And why was that thug Umaga working for the IRB on their try of the week during the WC. He shouldn’t be near a camera.

    2. I think the AB’s know that if they start citing other teams, in the long run they are going to come off far worse as they play a fair amount of rugby over the line. If you take the example of the world cup, they could have had several players cited in that final. I think that it is more a case of self preservation than moral high ground.

      1. Teams do not cite players. Citing is an independent process. NZ have nothing to do with it, so it does not indicate an acceptance of the act by NZ, neither does it indicate any sort of self preservation by NZ.

        1. Ah OK – accepted, and I’ll have to hold my hand up and say I was wrong.

          However why haven’t the independant panel done anything then in this case? Not to mention a couple high tackles, and taking players out in the air – it smacks of a whitewash so as not to ruin an AB party. You’d almost think the IRB were worried the World champs would boycott the next RWC!!

  9. Have to say that from up here (france) we’re amazed by your press’s french bashing which has gone on all during WC. This is not for sure what we call hopitality… France has allways admired the all blacks, and we all know that they deserved the WC. But for those who can’t remember, in 2007 you national team was welcome in France by the entire population including the press who never expressed anything negative against the blacks. Rugby means respect, on the field and all around. This last Rougerie’s polemic is too much. Mc Caw spent the all game offside in rucks in front of Mr Joubert who finaly sanctionned him only once…
    To refresh you minds

    Well done All Blacks
    From Paris with love….

    1. You’re right to go on about it Les Blues. It’s not about eye gouging, or who was the best team, it’s about fairness. There was nothing fair about Joubert’s cop out. It would have been better for the game and the AB’s if France were at least given ONE chance to kick out of several. If Trinh-Duc missed, noone would be complaining. If he scored, France would have been the winners, and to be fair they would have deserved it more. You can’t blame, or take away anything from New Zealand. It’s the refs. If we had video technology (if a big red neon light lit up in the stadium) for an offside, things would be different. I’m in favor or using more technology as long as it works properly and doesn’t interrupt the flow of the game, and that’s certainly possible.

      France didn’t have to beat Tonga. They didn’t have to beat New Zealand the first time, and they didn’t have to score a try or an additional penalty against Wales. They did what they had to do to get to the final. They didn’t cheat, and they were cheated by a ref that wouldn’t or couldn’t award a penalty to France.

      1. I think that after this RWC, some change in refereeing is going to have to come about. I don’t know whether it is more technology or more refs or what, but the simple fact is that it didn’t work, and seemed to be worse in the bigger games with the better refs. Can’t quite work that out! Maybe the bigger teams are just that much more cynical and prepared to cheat!

    2. “This last Rougerie’s polemic is too much. Mc Caw spent the all game offside in rucks in front of Mr Joubert who finaly sanctionned him only once…” – I see. So if the opposing player cheats and is not caught by the ref then eye gouging him is fine and any complaints about the eye gouges are unjustified whining.

      This is just tosh. Assaulting someone’s eyes is a cowardly offence, especially when that person is pinned at the bottom of a ruck. Rougerie is being rightly pilloried for doing it. McCaw is a massive cheat who seems to get away with being offside permanently, but this still does not justify attempting to claw his eyes out.

      You are right to complain about the ref. You are right to complain that McCaw was offside. You have no right to say that any of this justifies attempted eye gouging. Where does that end? Can I take a knife onto the field to sort out the infringements the ref doesn’t see in the next game?

      1. I tend to agree with Brighty on this – there’s no justification for eye gouging whatsoever.

        I felt cheated after the final having seen Joubert’s officiating, particularly when he bottled it in the last 5 minutes – he couldn’t bring himself to be the one that awarded France a penalty to lose NZ the cup. But again, you can’t condone gouging.

    3. This link is the most bias and ignorant (of the laws of the game) thing I have seen.

      I can dispute the vast majority of the rucks they talk about one by one if you thats what it takes:

      1) Woodcock does offend – but not for the reason they say – he does have the ball but he s off his feet. The problem is before theat happens richie mcCaw has rights to the ball and the French player doesn’t release.

      2) Apparently Richie McCaw is playing the ball here – no he s not. What he is doing is not affecting the game in any way – the ball is practically out- it comes out unhindered. Its basically just argy bargy.

      3) they compare two incidents that aren’t they same – when you re out of the blocks too early but you stop (when charging a kick), that’s very different from the second incident when you re attempting a tackle – which you then follow through on ( after attempting to get back onside).

      4) the head high by tony woodcock – looks at the laws of the game – if you hit below the shoulder and then they ‘duck into it’ its not a penalty. To be contrasted with ducking into it before contact, which is still a penalty.

      5) its not a penatly to the french captain. The player on the ground has released it but richie comes in attempts to clear him out – its a contest for the ball and the french player couldnt win it.

      6) “they re playing the ball off their feet”. No they re not. richie Mccaw was competing in the ruck, fell onto the wrong side – he then raised both hands into the air – he couldn’t get out of their. Happens all the time in rugby across the globe with no penalty. French were awarded the ball going forward.

      7) “there were four penalties there”. No there weren’t. Kaino won the ball on his feet and then when he went to ground he released it. The question is whether Kaino had rights to ball thogh – im not sure actually. Anyone know?

      SO basically these guys rack up a whole lot of footage – some are 50/50 calls. but a lot of this is rubbish from people who are obviously big fans but don’t know the rules and are hating on the AB’s.

  10. I honestly beg people to watch the last 10minutes again. Upon watching a game the second or third time (like me) people are more fair. I think this is because the emotion of who we want to win is taken out – and since rugby is full of 50/50 calls sometimes we always see these the way we want to.

    But I challenge you to watch it again and I honestly think you ll see a very disciplined NZ side.

    NB: If you compete for the ball but fall to the other side of the ruck – attempt to get out of the way, put your hands in the air to show you re not slowing it down – You re not offside! the question is whether, as a player on the ground, you are attempting to roll away, and whether you tried to stay on you feet.

    1. “NB: If you compete for the ball but fall to the other side of the ruck – attempt to get out of the way, put your hands in the air to show you re not slowing it down – You re not offside!” – that is not true, you are offside. How easy would it be to cheat if you simply had to lift your arms in the air to not be offside? If you are on the wrong side, regardless of how you got there, then you are offside. If you do not immediately make a massive attempt to get onside then it is a penalty.

        1. That’s still not right though. Intent is no defence when a ref is deciding on a penalty. You have to have made as much effort as he thinks you should have, it’s a clear rule otherwise you’ll get loads of people pretending to try and roll away, all that hands up in the air rubbish, knowing they won’t get penalised.

          What everyone knows is that McCaw is a master at giving some indication of intent to roll away but it would naive to think he is not just trying to play the ref. He gets away with it, a lot. It’s still a penalty.

Comments are closed.