Eye Gouging, Professionalism and the White Card

Flip Van der Merwe : The Aftermath

Interesting news has come out surrounding the eye-gouging claims during the Bulls-Crusaders match at Loftus during the weekend. The Guardian reports that:

"The Canterbury Crusaders have been cleared off all charges of eye-gouging by the Super Rugby ruling body Sanzar following allegations from the Northern Bulls after their match at Loftus Versfeld on Saturday. Bulls spokesman Ian Schwartz issued a statement on the franchise's website (www.thebulls.co.za) on Monday saying "no evidence of eye-gouging was found by Sanzar's judiciary system". Bulls hooker Chiliboy Ralepelle and lock Flip van der Merwe had claimed they were fouled by the Crusaders.

Schwartz said the Bulls would not apologise despite comments by Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder after the game that he expected an apology if the allegations were not proven.

"For them to suggest we must now apologise, just because there is no video evidence available, would mean we have lied," he said. "It is ridiculous to suggest that every time there is a citing and there is not enough evidence, the other team should apologise'. "The rules are clear and we applied them 100 percent correctly. We had the right to raise the matter with the referee and we accept the fact that there was no video evidence."

Given the results of the investigation...do you think this was a case of Crusaders players getting caught red handed but not prosecuted? After all there were two cases of eye gouging claimed, not one and the Crusaders are hardly saints. Also if there were fingers around the eyes, is it likely that both incidents were accidental?

Furthermore, this year has seen the introduction of the white card (for indiscretions which cannot be ruled upon on the field). It could be that this was an act of 'simulation' by Bulls players. Playacting, as seen in football so regularly, could be the next stage of profesionalism in rugby. A white card given would clearly unsettle opposition players and reduce their focus on the matter in hand. Given that neither player who claimed being gouged came out of the ruck holding their eye, or seemed in distress (as one would normally see)....could this be the case? Did the Bulls players and even management have an agenda? I sincerely hope not, as this would be a horrific step for rugby to take. However given the deeply ingrained problems we saw with Harlequins and 'Bloodgate' a few years ago, it's not a possibilty one can rule out.

You can make your own mind up. The video footage showed nothing of sorts and so rightfully cleared them but other snaps have been circling the media since which do look slightly dodgy. Have a look for yourself!