![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Eye-gouging (rugby union) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | Eye-gouging (rugby union) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
I removed to tricolour from Neil Best and Alan Quinlan as Irish rugby players don't play under the tricolour but rather the IRFU flag which can't be used due to copyright issues.
GainLine
♠
♥
09:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You're 100 percent correct with Quinlan, the problem is with Ulster based players such as Best the Union flag may not be appropriate due to politicial issues etc. This problem rears itself a lot. See:-
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union. Thats generally why Ireland is used as it the most neutral
GainLine
♠
♥
11:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Its a far from ideal situation and it doen's look like getting resolved anytime soon, I guess thats the best for the time being
GainLine
♠
♥
11:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
What are the criteria for inclusion in this list? The term gouging is not used in the IRB laws or regulations - Regulation 17 appendix 1 is the only part that refers to this and that refers only to "contact with the eyes or eye area". I notice that some players have been removed from this list because they apparently where only guilty of contact with the eyes and not with gouging. So, what qualifies as gouging and what is only contact with the eyes? noq ( talk) 08:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
It is disingenuous to compare eye-gouging to being offside. The IRB itself referred to the act as "eye-gouging" (even though the rule book does not use the term) and called it particularly heinous, so much so that they will shortly change the rules: "The IRB is firmly of the view that there is no place in rugby for illegal or foul play and the act of eye gouging is particularly heinous". I would include the Burger case, because it gained notoriety for being "eye-gouging" even though the eventual sanction technically did not classify it as such. Overall these incidents are most certainly notable (grab headlines every time) and few enough in number to warrant a list. I'm not sure about a more inclusive list ("making contact with eye area"), because that could be larger and of less interest and might confuse casual readers less versed in the intricacies of the IRB rulebook. — Deon Steyn ( talk) 10:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not convinced that splitting the table is an improvement. There is much confusion and dispute in several of the cases - notably with the Tincu case where the sanction was not applied in French domestic competition due to "insufficient evidence". So why move Burger to a separate table? The decision on the Jennings case [3] also does not meet your definition of eye-gouging. noq ( talk) 12:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
My earlier List of players penalised for being off-side-question was just an extreme example of the difficulties in defining the notability and criteria for inclusion of this article - rest assured the two offences are not being equated. I am just asking why there should be a list for THIS offence? Why not for biting/stamping/head-butting/punching/high-tackling/referee-directed-aggression etc...that is all considered dangerous, heinous and have specific rules to guard against them. I would also imagine very few citation verdicts explicitly mention "gouging", so the only way to define inclusion on this list clearly, fairly and unambiguously is to include ALL "contact with face area" offenses - which (as stated earlier) does make it into a very long list with limited value, which will also be very hard to keep accurate at non-national level. I also don't think the split works. Either all eye-contact-offences like Burger's should be mentioned, OR the inclusion criteria defined otherwise, which causes a problem. Hence I confirm my earlier opinion of deletion. - Sahmejil ( talk) 15:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to let people know, some additions on the list is out of chronological order and will require some attention soon. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 22:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
List of rugby union players banned for contact with eyes or the eye area of an opponent → List of rugby union players banned eye gouging — Per WP:COMMONNAME eye gouging is the common name for contact with eyes or the eye area of an opponent it should be explained in the lead what eye gouging is not having a ridiculous title no one would ever search for Gnevin ( talk) 14:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose It was moved from that to this because it was going to be deleted as being too vague under that title. If you're concerned about users not finding this page then make the proposed move target a redirect to here. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 15:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I have found a story here about a player who was blinded after being the victim of an eye-gouge and I think that once the culprint is found then it would be a good addition to the list. I'm posting the link here so we don't lose it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 15:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
List of rugby union players banned for contact with eyes or the eye area of an opponent → Eye gouging in rugby union — Per WP:COMMONNAME eye gouging is the common name for contact with eyes or the eye area of an opponent it should be explained in the lead what eye gouging is not having a ridiculous title no one would ever search for
Oppose: (As I said before) It was moved from that to this because it was going to be deleted as being too vague under that title. If you're concerned about users not finding this page then make the proposed move target a redirect to here. If you have a problem with the opening sentence, why not have a go at it yourself? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 15:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: As per the intro, there is NO offence of gouging in the laws and regs of the game. I renamed the article to bring it into a tight definition and would be the first to admit its far from ideal and would welcome someone else having a crack at it but calling it gougin would bring us back to square one.
GainLine
♠
♥
15:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
<=It has a lot to do with gouging, but there are some players on that list who haven't gouged. Howabout
Rugby union players banned for eye contact with an opponent? or
Eye Contact in Rugby union. Short and more concise
GainLine
♠
♥
16:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The inclusion definition for the list now includes things that people would not regard as gouging so calling it gouging would be misleading. How would you change the inclusion criteria to include only what a consensus of people would regard as gouging? noq ( talk) 17:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_May_10#File:RUeyegouge.jpg . I am trying to convince these people that RU players don't go around poking each others eyes out so often that you can wonder up too your local park on any day of the week and get a image that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. I am not having much joy. Maybe you can have a look Gnevin ( talk) 09:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I tend to think of "eye contact" meaning two people locking gazes... Is this really appropriate in this instance?-- MacRusgail ( talk) 16:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the page again, per WP:COMMONNAME. I understand the opposition to this in the preceding section, but it's based on rhetoric rather than consideration of our actual naming conventions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
<=What is a reliable source in this case? Should it be a headline writer or the sports governing body that don't have an offence of eye gouging? From a BLP issue, you have Martin Corry being tagged as gouging when it wasn't a gouge.
GainLine
♠
♥
08:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
<=Not when its a highly perjorative term and there is list of players who have not been banned for gouging
GainLine
♠
♥
19:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
<=Considering I pretty much rewrote this article to save it from AFD, I know what its about. The term eye-goguing is sensationalist and inaccurate. There is mo consensus for this move.
GainLine
♠
♥
14:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Feel free to open new move discussions on other titles as well. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Eye-gouging (rugby union) → Contact with eyes or the eye area (rugby union) — The current name is a violation of WP:UCN as many included in here have NOT been banned for eye-gouging but contact with the eyes which there is a subtle difference between Gouging and touching the area around the eye |Relisted billinghurst sDrewth 04:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC) | The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 08:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment at this point it looks like no consensus, in which case the status quo would be maintained. Is there a desire to relist and have the discussion continue? billinghurst sDrewth 23:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this article a little more after reading the IRB recommended sanctionable offenses at See Appendix 1 of regulation 17 (p242-4). Eye-gouging is one offense among 25 listed offenses. One option we have not considered is moving this article to a section heading under Sanctionable offenses in rugby union (or something more elegantly titled) where the full list of offenses can be listed and expanded. If we end up creating a main article for Eye-gouging (or Contact with eyes or the eye area, then we should probably have an article for:
Now I use the accurate titles for these offenses not to put a point on the naming issue, but to indicate that there are a number of notable subjects that should o be expounded on, but I would argue NOT in main articles. I think it would be far better to formulate one article for the whole subject of sanctionable offenses, and create one GA out of the whole group, rather than battle to cover each topic individually - and potentially having mediocre covering of the topic as a whole. This is following the idea set forth at the WP help page Help:Section#Sections vs. separate pages vs. transclusion:
I really dislike the name that is being proposed, not because I think it absolutely must be Eye-gouging - it is just a horrible, horrible name, that does not fit into the common usage principle even remotely. I would argue that this is a far better way forward than simply butting heads on the subject. SauliH ( talk) 18:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
As you seem to have failed to notice I only want the correct technical term used with common name redirects per WP:UCN. The weeks thing was only a rough off-the-head idea and probibly wasn't such a good idea after all but the other suggestion may work. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 16:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I want to inform all editors who have contributed towards this article in talk or in edits, that I have nominated the page to be peer reviewed in a hope to gain some outside input which hopefully could lead to this page becoming Wikipedia's first Rugby Union specific Good Article. The review can be found at: Wikipedia:Peer review/Eye-gouging (rugby union)/archive1 and any input from anyone would be greatly helpful. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 19:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I came here from the peer review page, but thought my comments would fit better on the talk page. Do we really need to include a list of players banned for eye gouging/contact with the eyes. I would suggest putting the "high profile" (as judged by media coverage) cases into prose form. That would avoid most of the BLP concerns mentioned above, allow the title to stay eye gouging and probably make this a better article in the process. I agree with SauliH's idea about creating a Foulplay in rugby union article. AIRcorn (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I see this has already been discussed at length above, although the foul play article remains red so I will assume no one is trying to create said article. If someone is let me know, otherwise I am feeling a little bold and have some spare time so might give it a burl. AIRcorn (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Have started an article on dangerous play in rugby union. It has a lot more development to do, I ripped most of it from here, but I thought I would add it to main space early so other editors can give their opinion and edit it. I think merging this would be a good idea, although that doesn't solve the problem of the list. Sorry about jumping in, but the above conversations seemed to have gone stale and I am more of a just do it type person. I imagine some would prefer the title to be Foul play in rugby union, but I chose "dangerous" as foul plays definition by the IRB included obstruction and repeated infringements, which seemed out of this type of articles scope. Let me know what you think. AIRcorn (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
This section is woefully biased. The claim that it is not regarded as harshly in the Southern hemisphere is not backed up by the given reference. The Peter Bills article only talks about De Villiers - not the whole of the southern hemisphere. The Loe case being the first reported major case is not backed up - the only thing that you can say is it is the first case you have found a reference to - not the same thing. And having a southern hemisphere case does not back up the first claim. noq ( talk) 11:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The question above. I am wondering this in relation to an event in the RWC 2011 final involving Richie McCaw (being eye-gouged), but no official complaint has been raised, though there is pretty solid evidence (it was caught on camera), and Richie did acknowledge the occurrence (that is to say, he said he was poked in the eye). I have filled out a section for it on the table (and it is there, but hidden), but seeing that all of the other occurrences were recognized by rugby authorities, whereas there has been no issue made over this (except by the public, various rugby veterans, and in the press), I wondered whether to include it. Gott wisst ( talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Eye-gouging (rugby union). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of rugby union players banned for contact with eyes or the eye area of an an opponent. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC 678 01:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Eye-gouging (rugby union) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | Eye-gouging (rugby union) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
I removed to tricolour from Neil Best and Alan Quinlan as Irish rugby players don't play under the tricolour but rather the IRFU flag which can't be used due to copyright issues.
GainLine
♠
♥
09:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You're 100 percent correct with Quinlan, the problem is with Ulster based players such as Best the Union flag may not be appropriate due to politicial issues etc. This problem rears itself a lot. See:-
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union. Thats generally why Ireland is used as it the most neutral
GainLine
♠
♥
11:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Its a far from ideal situation and it doen's look like getting resolved anytime soon, I guess thats the best for the time being
GainLine
♠
♥
11:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
What are the criteria for inclusion in this list? The term gouging is not used in the IRB laws or regulations - Regulation 17 appendix 1 is the only part that refers to this and that refers only to "contact with the eyes or eye area". I notice that some players have been removed from this list because they apparently where only guilty of contact with the eyes and not with gouging. So, what qualifies as gouging and what is only contact with the eyes? noq ( talk) 08:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
It is disingenuous to compare eye-gouging to being offside. The IRB itself referred to the act as "eye-gouging" (even though the rule book does not use the term) and called it particularly heinous, so much so that they will shortly change the rules: "The IRB is firmly of the view that there is no place in rugby for illegal or foul play and the act of eye gouging is particularly heinous". I would include the Burger case, because it gained notoriety for being "eye-gouging" even though the eventual sanction technically did not classify it as such. Overall these incidents are most certainly notable (grab headlines every time) and few enough in number to warrant a list. I'm not sure about a more inclusive list ("making contact with eye area"), because that could be larger and of less interest and might confuse casual readers less versed in the intricacies of the IRB rulebook. — Deon Steyn ( talk) 10:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not convinced that splitting the table is an improvement. There is much confusion and dispute in several of the cases - notably with the Tincu case where the sanction was not applied in French domestic competition due to "insufficient evidence". So why move Burger to a separate table? The decision on the Jennings case [3] also does not meet your definition of eye-gouging. noq ( talk) 12:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
My earlier List of players penalised for being off-side-question was just an extreme example of the difficulties in defining the notability and criteria for inclusion of this article - rest assured the two offences are not being equated. I am just asking why there should be a list for THIS offence? Why not for biting/stamping/head-butting/punching/high-tackling/referee-directed-aggression etc...that is all considered dangerous, heinous and have specific rules to guard against them. I would also imagine very few citation verdicts explicitly mention "gouging", so the only way to define inclusion on this list clearly, fairly and unambiguously is to include ALL "contact with face area" offenses - which (as stated earlier) does make it into a very long list with limited value, which will also be very hard to keep accurate at non-national level. I also don't think the split works. Either all eye-contact-offences like Burger's should be mentioned, OR the inclusion criteria defined otherwise, which causes a problem. Hence I confirm my earlier opinion of deletion. - Sahmejil ( talk) 15:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to let people know, some additions on the list is out of chronological order and will require some attention soon. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 22:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
List of rugby union players banned for contact with eyes or the eye area of an opponent → List of rugby union players banned eye gouging — Per WP:COMMONNAME eye gouging is the common name for contact with eyes or the eye area of an opponent it should be explained in the lead what eye gouging is not having a ridiculous title no one would ever search for Gnevin ( talk) 14:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose It was moved from that to this because it was going to be deleted as being too vague under that title. If you're concerned about users not finding this page then make the proposed move target a redirect to here. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 15:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I have found a story here about a player who was blinded after being the victim of an eye-gouge and I think that once the culprint is found then it would be a good addition to the list. I'm posting the link here so we don't lose it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 15:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
List of rugby union players banned for contact with eyes or the eye area of an opponent → Eye gouging in rugby union — Per WP:COMMONNAME eye gouging is the common name for contact with eyes or the eye area of an opponent it should be explained in the lead what eye gouging is not having a ridiculous title no one would ever search for
Oppose: (As I said before) It was moved from that to this because it was going to be deleted as being too vague under that title. If you're concerned about users not finding this page then make the proposed move target a redirect to here. If you have a problem with the opening sentence, why not have a go at it yourself? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 15:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: As per the intro, there is NO offence of gouging in the laws and regs of the game. I renamed the article to bring it into a tight definition and would be the first to admit its far from ideal and would welcome someone else having a crack at it but calling it gougin would bring us back to square one.
GainLine
♠
♥
15:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
<=It has a lot to do with gouging, but there are some players on that list who haven't gouged. Howabout
Rugby union players banned for eye contact with an opponent? or
Eye Contact in Rugby union. Short and more concise
GainLine
♠
♥
16:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The inclusion definition for the list now includes things that people would not regard as gouging so calling it gouging would be misleading. How would you change the inclusion criteria to include only what a consensus of people would regard as gouging? noq ( talk) 17:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_May_10#File:RUeyegouge.jpg . I am trying to convince these people that RU players don't go around poking each others eyes out so often that you can wonder up too your local park on any day of the week and get a image that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. I am not having much joy. Maybe you can have a look Gnevin ( talk) 09:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I tend to think of "eye contact" meaning two people locking gazes... Is this really appropriate in this instance?-- MacRusgail ( talk) 16:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the page again, per WP:COMMONNAME. I understand the opposition to this in the preceding section, but it's based on rhetoric rather than consideration of our actual naming conventions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
<=What is a reliable source in this case? Should it be a headline writer or the sports governing body that don't have an offence of eye gouging? From a BLP issue, you have Martin Corry being tagged as gouging when it wasn't a gouge.
GainLine
♠
♥
08:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
<=Not when its a highly perjorative term and there is list of players who have not been banned for gouging
GainLine
♠
♥
19:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
<=Considering I pretty much rewrote this article to save it from AFD, I know what its about. The term eye-goguing is sensationalist and inaccurate. There is mo consensus for this move.
GainLine
♠
♥
14:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Feel free to open new move discussions on other titles as well. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Eye-gouging (rugby union) → Contact with eyes or the eye area (rugby union) — The current name is a violation of WP:UCN as many included in here have NOT been banned for eye-gouging but contact with the eyes which there is a subtle difference between Gouging and touching the area around the eye |Relisted billinghurst sDrewth 04:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC) | The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 08:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment at this point it looks like no consensus, in which case the status quo would be maintained. Is there a desire to relist and have the discussion continue? billinghurst sDrewth 23:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this article a little more after reading the IRB recommended sanctionable offenses at See Appendix 1 of regulation 17 (p242-4). Eye-gouging is one offense among 25 listed offenses. One option we have not considered is moving this article to a section heading under Sanctionable offenses in rugby union (or something more elegantly titled) where the full list of offenses can be listed and expanded. If we end up creating a main article for Eye-gouging (or Contact with eyes or the eye area, then we should probably have an article for:
Now I use the accurate titles for these offenses not to put a point on the naming issue, but to indicate that there are a number of notable subjects that should o be expounded on, but I would argue NOT in main articles. I think it would be far better to formulate one article for the whole subject of sanctionable offenses, and create one GA out of the whole group, rather than battle to cover each topic individually - and potentially having mediocre covering of the topic as a whole. This is following the idea set forth at the WP help page Help:Section#Sections vs. separate pages vs. transclusion:
I really dislike the name that is being proposed, not because I think it absolutely must be Eye-gouging - it is just a horrible, horrible name, that does not fit into the common usage principle even remotely. I would argue that this is a far better way forward than simply butting heads on the subject. SauliH ( talk) 18:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
As you seem to have failed to notice I only want the correct technical term used with common name redirects per WP:UCN. The weeks thing was only a rough off-the-head idea and probibly wasn't such a good idea after all but the other suggestion may work. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 16:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I want to inform all editors who have contributed towards this article in talk or in edits, that I have nominated the page to be peer reviewed in a hope to gain some outside input which hopefully could lead to this page becoming Wikipedia's first Rugby Union specific Good Article. The review can be found at: Wikipedia:Peer review/Eye-gouging (rugby union)/archive1 and any input from anyone would be greatly helpful. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 19:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I came here from the peer review page, but thought my comments would fit better on the talk page. Do we really need to include a list of players banned for eye gouging/contact with the eyes. I would suggest putting the "high profile" (as judged by media coverage) cases into prose form. That would avoid most of the BLP concerns mentioned above, allow the title to stay eye gouging and probably make this a better article in the process. I agree with SauliH's idea about creating a Foulplay in rugby union article. AIRcorn (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I see this has already been discussed at length above, although the foul play article remains red so I will assume no one is trying to create said article. If someone is let me know, otherwise I am feeling a little bold and have some spare time so might give it a burl. AIRcorn (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Have started an article on dangerous play in rugby union. It has a lot more development to do, I ripped most of it from here, but I thought I would add it to main space early so other editors can give their opinion and edit it. I think merging this would be a good idea, although that doesn't solve the problem of the list. Sorry about jumping in, but the above conversations seemed to have gone stale and I am more of a just do it type person. I imagine some would prefer the title to be Foul play in rugby union, but I chose "dangerous" as foul plays definition by the IRB included obstruction and repeated infringements, which seemed out of this type of articles scope. Let me know what you think. AIRcorn (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
This section is woefully biased. The claim that it is not regarded as harshly in the Southern hemisphere is not backed up by the given reference. The Peter Bills article only talks about De Villiers - not the whole of the southern hemisphere. The Loe case being the first reported major case is not backed up - the only thing that you can say is it is the first case you have found a reference to - not the same thing. And having a southern hemisphere case does not back up the first claim. noq ( talk) 11:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The question above. I am wondering this in relation to an event in the RWC 2011 final involving Richie McCaw (being eye-gouged), but no official complaint has been raised, though there is pretty solid evidence (it was caught on camera), and Richie did acknowledge the occurrence (that is to say, he said he was poked in the eye). I have filled out a section for it on the table (and it is there, but hidden), but seeing that all of the other occurrences were recognized by rugby authorities, whereas there has been no issue made over this (except by the public, various rugby veterans, and in the press), I wondered whether to include it. Gott wisst ( talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Eye-gouging (rugby union). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of rugby union players banned for contact with eyes or the eye area of an an opponent. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC 678 01:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)