We value your privacy

We and our partners store and/or access information on a device, such as cookies and process personal data, such as unique identifiers and standard information sent by a device for personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, and audience insights, as well as to develop and improve products.

With your permission we and our partners may use precise geolocation. You may click to consent to our and our partners’ processing as described above. Please note that some processing of your personal data may not require your consent, but you have a right to object to such processing.

More Options

Wed 28 May 2014 | 09:04
Owen Williams banned for six weeks for making contact with Luther Burrell's eyes

18
Comments

Wales will be without the services of Leicester Tigers flyhalf Owen Williams after he was last night banned for six weeks for making contact with the eyes of Northampton Saints back Luther Burrell in the Aviva Premiership semi final.

The charge against Williams for acts contrary to good sportsmanship, contrary to Law 10.4.M, was heard yesterday evening. Williams pleaded guilty after having made contact with the eye(s) or eye area of Burrell in the 64th minute.

Williams was given a six-week ban that leads up until the 1st September 2014. He is free to play again on 2nd of September. He will miss the three upcoming matches for Wales as well as three pre-season games for Leicester Tigers.

The 22-year-old flyhalf was on track to earn his first ever Wales cap after an impressive season with the Tigers, but that moment will have to wait until later in the year, if all goes to plan.

Wales are set to meet the Springboks in two Tests in South Africa, on June 14 and June 21. 

The incident wasn't clearly visible when watching live, and no replays were shown at the time. You can however see Williams leaning and making contact with Burrell, which is obviously where the offence occurred, especially judging by the England center's reaction. 

This is a short clip, but other angles would have been available for the disciplinary hearing.

Posted By: Grant Constable

18 Comments

  • drg
    10:38 AM 01/06/2014

    I don't necessarily disagree with you, however Burrell was upset about something... So did gouging 'nearly' take place?

    If someone just put their hands on my face in a ruck then I don't kick up a fuss - It's happened before, but if someones fingertips were around my eyes I might kick up more of a fuss!

  • drg
    2:15 PM 30/05/2014

    Well to be totally fair, Hartley is a bit of a moron, or was.. He seems to have cleaned his act up a little bit (I think)...

    Well. yes pictures can be misleading, but I cannot possibly see what the alternative could be with the Attoub picture... I mean the only way his finger was not in Ferris eye was if he was missing the end of it.

    I do know what you mean, but personally rather than reducing the bans the likes of Dupuy and Attoub received I'd like to see increased bans for the others.

    That being said, I couldn't happily 100% say Williams gouged Burrell, nor would I say O'Donoghue gouged or attempted to gouge at all, so a ban for Williams but never a ban for O'Donoghue.

  • drg
    8:59 PM 29/05/2014

    Oliver, I don't know but it seems that say Hartley, Williams and O'Donoghue were somewhat spur of the moment incidents:

    - O'Donoghue was just a scrap and a hand on the face.
    - Williams, I don't know exactly, hard to see.
    - Hartley, I can't quite remember this incident. (thats not an excuse to not include so much)..

    Whereas the fact Ferris was targeted by Dupuy and Attoub suggest it was more premeditated, which is where the reasons for the large ban could stem from...

    Plus, I'm not suggesting it's clear cut, but that picture of Attoub knuckle deep in Ferris eye was pretty horrific and if the medical team and Ferris both kicked up a big fuss then I can see where the big ban again could come from.

    Either way, I don't like the idea of ANY contact with any players eye/eye area although as stated above, O'Donoghue looked like more of a hand in the face, much like any hand off - I made a comment about hand offs earlier...

  • nathan
    5:44 PM 29/05/2014

    First and foremost, i have to own up to accidentally hitting the like button on your post, i didn't mean too.

    It's pretty easy why those two cases are different: one charge was gouging, the other making contact with the eye area - one carries more punishment over the other.

  • drg
    1:51 AM 29/05/2014

    Kind of difficult to throw around the word 'Thug' when we have 9 seconds of footage all from one angle and the incident appears to occur within the first 4-5 seconds..

    I mean I'm all for calling the guy a cheating gouging thug, but at the end of the day I'm only going to do it when I can see it - no pun..

    For the time being, I support his ban and cannot really say much more.. can you?

  • drg
    1:47 AM 29/05/2014

    Again though, that rule was brought in; I suspect, to punish those who have attempted to gouge, not those that stick a hand in someones face as they tussle.

    It's a bit like the tip tackle thing. It was brought in to punish potentially neck damaging tackles and now tackles such as the one in Bastareauds most recent video get incorrectly punished.

    Hand offs, often involve a hand to the face - That is hands/fingers in the eye area - is banning a player who performs a hand off the next step?

    I think the governing bodies need to do themselves and everyone a favour and work out what it is they're trying to apply the laws to and why. As I said above, if we go to the letter of the law, a hand off to the face should incur a ban.

  • 11:41 PM 28/05/2014

    Really dumb, Richard cockerills tutelage all over that

  • browner
    6:35 PM 28/05/2014

    the offence is contact with the eye area .....

    TBH I dont care what Medical or victim said ( he wouldve had his eyes closed gteed) that WAS definately "in the eye area" and SANZAR have shamefully conspired to send the wrong message the sport.

    I smell the stench of politics , not integrity in that decision.

  • drg
    6:02 PM 28/05/2014

    Interesting point Eddie - regarding earnings, courts etc.

    I suppose the only argument is that the player is perhaps incapable of immediately playing the game within the confines of the law and is therefore a danger to their opponents. Which is perhaps where they could find an angle.

  • drg
    5:51 PM 28/05/2014

    I think we agree, I see you're merely commenting on the laws side of things, so you're quite correct, whereas I'm commenting from the 'common sense' side of things, so I'm technically incorrect in the eyes of the law (no pun intended...)

  • eddie-g
    5:05 PM 28/05/2014

    In the NFL, fines and bans have to fit within the contract between the players union and the nfl. That's the start point. And any ban that seems excessive will be challenged by the union as being in breach of that contract. There's a case now involving Robert Mathis where he's facing a 4 game ban, he is unhappy about it, but the union is not planning to contest it. So a pretty good sign his punishment is fair.

    Anyway, gouging versus hands in the eye area is like spear tackle versus tip tackle. Same broad category of offense, but the former is more serious and results in a harsher punishment.

  • finedisregard
    3:27 PM 28/05/2014

    Interesting. The way it works in professional American sports is that they rarely ban players but give them monetary fines instead. Of course most every player is a millionaire. 30 large sounds like a lot.

    So "making contact with eyes" is like a less despicable form of gouging? I'm not sure I get it. If the PTB are serious they should produce a written guideline for degrees of offense and the appropriate punishment. The citing commission process is so inconsistent.

  • eddie-g
    3:14 PM 28/05/2014

    For anyone wondering why such a lenient punishment for gouging... he wasn't done for gouging. He was sanctioned for contact with the eye area, which while still serious, is a lesser offense.

    And 6 weeks, I think, is a pretty standard ban in such cases.

    The interesting thing in this case - as with the Adriaan Strauss tip-tackle - is that for both, the impact of the ban is missed internationals. In Strauss's case, he'd apparently be due around $10,000 for each bok appearance.

    And this is where the citing blokes need to really be sure about applying the rules consistently - if a player has copped an unjustifiably long ban, or the process has been botched, the players' unions should be suing on their behalf. The lost earnings from these bans can get pretty large, and one day, I'd reckon one of these decisions will be challenged in a court.

  • drg
    2:46 PM 28/05/2014

    Guys guys guys.. think about it, I know we cannot go by 'Victim reaction' alone - see Bryan Habana video a few days ago, but the fact is here we see a clear reaction from Burrell and obviously more evidence.

    Ed O'Donoghue:
    Video evidence was damning
    Medical team said nothing happened
    'Victim' said nothing happened

    This however is entirely different, video evidence we have here isn't great, however the player reaction said a lot more. As for the medical team and Burrells point of view after the game, I don't know...

    I think the law has probably been used quite well in both incidents, it appears no one in Ed's incident wanted any further action, whereas here it appears there is a reaction and perhaps words were put on paper later on - Or NOT written by the Saints in Williams defence...

  • colombes
    2:42 PM 28/05/2014

    Another example that 'eye-gouging' sanctions can vary from the simple to the triple, whether u come from a country/federation or another... #hypocrisy

  • drg
    2:40 PM 28/05/2014

    Difference is O'Donoghue had a heck of a lot of support from medical teams AND the 'victim'..

  • 1:56 PM 28/05/2014

    So on the O'Donoghue incident there's clear proof of his intentions (what should really count. If I intend to shoot a person, the fact that I missed doesnt make it all alright, just makes me a pathetic failure), and yet he goes unpunished because "the victim lacked reaction to the gouging, indicating that it didn't occur" (btw, still think this is the biggest fallacy ever, as everyone reacts differently, even when they sit still). Yet on this instance, where people can't actually see anything other than williams in the vicinity of burrel, he gets a 6 games, making him miss the June internationals? How am I to take the IRB disciplinary council seriously? You want to ban williams, go for it, he did plead guilty after all, but dont make a mockery out of the process for letting o'donoghue go unpunished

  • danknapp
    12:33 PM 28/05/2014

    It'll be interesting to see some better angles. 6 weeks seems extremely low for gouging, so I guess that they thought it was something else? It'll be interesting to see more.

Related Articles