Heaslip cleared
Ireland No 8 Jamie Heaslip has been cleared of an allegation of eye-gouging brought by the Springboks.
Independent citing commissioner Douglas Hunt made the decision on Monday evening, after South Africa asked for special investigation into an incident involving Heaslip and flank Heinrich Brüssow in the first half of the Croke Park Test on Saturday. South Africa reportedly had no concrete evidence for Hunt to work with in his investigation.
The Irish Rugby Football Union [IRFU] said they were ‘very disappointed’ with the saga and lamented Heaslip’s name being mentioned in the media.
‘The Six Nations has confirmed to the Irish Rugby Football Union that none of a number of referrals made by South Africa against Ireland players has been upheld by the independent citing commissioner that was present at the game between Ireland and South Africa in Croke Park on Saturday 28 November,’ they said in a statement.
‘The Ireland management is, however, very disappointed that the name of an Ireland player was subsequently associated with eye-gouging in the media as a result of one of these unsubstantiated referrals.’
The IRFU also questioned the validity of the claims brought against Heaslip and others.
‘The Ireland management fully support and believe in the integrity of the citing process in place, but believe that any referrals in this process should be made only when they are material and substantial.’
December 1st, 2009 at 8:40 am
Please don’t start whinging about double standards gentlemen.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:50 am
fingering Dragons!
December 1st, 2009 at 8:57 am
Is there any video anywhere of this? I know there was a bit of handbags near the beginning of the match (apparently when it happened)…would be interested to see it.
In any event, no player is above reproach…If a player feels his eyes were attacked, the team has every right to ask for an investigation. Heaslip has been cleared, and that should be the end of it. The IRFU shouldn’t go making accusations. It’s not the fault of the teams involved in citings that the media get involved and publish names, is it?
December 1st, 2009 at 9:17 am
It sound a fabrication from the minute go, the citing was lodged after 48 hours, I said it before and I am glad I was right
December 1st, 2009 at 9:23 am
If it was an attack on the eyes (for which there seems to be no evidence) the player responsible should be heavily punished.
If it was a fabrication, the player responsible for the false accusation should be heavily punished.
Looks like one of those where we’ll never know
December 1st, 2009 at 9:30 am
Speaking of false accusations, was any action ever taken against the French fullback for engineering the citing against Habs?
December 1st, 2009 at 9:59 am
Could have guessed it with this flawed system.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:00 am
Evidence is evidence. End of the matter. Seems silly to make an allegation without any.
Another example of the dof “headless chicken” South African approach?…
December 1st, 2009 at 10:03 am
Obviously the Boks wouldn’t have made the allegation if they didn’t believe it happened. Just because it wasn’t caught on camera doesn’t mean they shouldn’t mention it
December 1st, 2009 at 10:10 am
I would have hoped that Brian O’Driscoll and friends would come clean on this, and damn this te same way they did a couple of months ago on the Lions tour. Agree with #9 Rich. Just because it wasn’t cought on camera means it didn’t take place. Remember specificaly in the game a scuffle between Brussouw and Heaslip with Heaslip coming away with a torn jersey. Must be when it happened?
December 1st, 2009 at 10:11 am
@rich1: Why, so people can question your motives or question the actual existence of the alleged incident when the expected “not guilty due to lack of evidence is made”? It’s a little embarrassing for SA, isn’t it?
If you can’t put it up then shut it up.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:16 am
@wooden spoon: Nobody in the bok camp ecpected any action in any case. Irish cameras and Irish producers decided what would be shown. Brussouw would’nt just make up something like this. He’s not french….
December 1st, 2009 at 10:17 am
@wooden spoon: Embarrasing/unsubstansial/inaccurate Maybe? Do you want a Visa?
December 1st, 2009 at 10:19 am
@Bokpoot: How do you prove it without evidence? What must the citing commissioner do with an accusation and no evidence?
December 1st, 2009 at 10:19 am
Not only can’t they win the test, but they can’t even get a citing to stick…
Incompetence on and off the field.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:21 am
@Bokpoot: I’m not doubting the incident didn’t happen…
But come on chaps, if you don’t want egg on your face, then surely you don’t make a serious allegation without the means of proving it?
@Bakmister: visa for where?
December 1st, 2009 at 10:22 am
@rossoneri: Why does he need to prove it? If he was gouged, he needs to raise the point.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:25 am
The IRFU say as much in one simple sentence…
‘The Ireland management fully support and believe in the integrity of the citing process in place, but believe that any referrals in this process should be made only when they are material and substantial.’
Material being the operational word. Without evidence the allegation is immaterial.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:26 am
@wooden spoon: I just thought you are not from here(SA)!! We get this kind of reaction from our leaders so what do you expect would SB admin do? To be a international embaresment is a law here, and you dont need evidence to be wrong
December 1st, 2009 at 10:28 am
Listen neither I or anyone here know what happened….
However, this whole “why would the boks claim it if it weren’t true” is ludicrous. Since the allegaion not one word has been written regarding the actual game and it’s victors or indeed the shortcomings of the losers……It has created a complete smokescreen…..
December 1st, 2009 at 10:30 am
@Bokpoot:
I am sure it didn’t elude the citing commissioner too
It’s the duty of the captain to attract the Test referee’s attention to the transgression and that didn’t happened!
December 1st, 2009 at 10:32 am
@wooden spoon: Boks wouldn’t have access to all the footage of the game, they needed to request a investigation within a couple of hours after the game. The citing commisioner would need to make a decision about the citing within 48 hours. It would be up to him to look whether there is any evidence.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:32 am
@Bakmister: My bloed is groen.
@Just Another Paddy: Are you living in a dreamworld? The Irish were praised in the press, just as the Boks were rubbished and disgraced. Stop feeling like a victim when there’s no need and enjoy the win – you don’t have many against the Boks
December 1st, 2009 at 10:36 am
@Just Another Paddy: Yeah reminds one of the Lions series, doesn’t it…..
December 1st, 2009 at 10:37 am
@WP_:
What is that flawed system you refer to?
There is a lawyer who is the SARU Citing commissioner, not sure of his name, he came up this year with few buffled decisions that defied all realities, I guess he is the man for the job?
December 1st, 2009 at 10:38 am
No wonder nothing could be found – the camerawork for the match was sh*t … The Northern hemisphere should stop spending so much money on players and start focusing on improving their TV coverage for who the games about – the fans…
December 1st, 2009 at 10:40 am
@Just Another Paddy: Just incase you need to hear this from us…well played you guys deserved the win!!
Now, what about that congratulions on the British and Irish Lions series?
December 1st, 2009 at 10:48 am
In the smog nobody could see anything, ideal for the odd eye gouge.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:49 am
I thought it would have been more appropriate to cite the spear tackle made on Habana after the whistle went. No mention of that? It never fails to amaze me that they only punish these when the player is actually injured.
I do agree with some of the comments here – SA very seldom cite the opposition. We’re not a bunch of whingers like the Aussies, who cite every broken fingernail. So if a claim of eye-gouging has been made, I find it hard to beliebe it isn’t genuine, but completely accept that without evidence the case is dropped. Lets move on.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:51 am
@Hondo: Let’s see what happens to the Frenchman.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:52 am
@steeve: I agree there – what’s with those low angle shots where you can’t even tell which way the tryline is? I also like to see the odd angled shot, but not for a whole phase of play.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:57 am
@Hondo: The citing was in time, it was on the news before the 48 hour mark, or are you talking about some other citing.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:57 am
@TheTackler: chuffnut
December 1st, 2009 at 10:58 am
@Bokpoot:
Think that was in the second half – Boks said it was in the first half
December 1st, 2009 at 11:07 am
@TheTackler: It must hurt to lose three times in a row to a bunch of incompetents.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:08 am
@rich1: Actually according to the Irishtimes, they did say it was in the second half.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:11 am
Even if the Boks have evidence that something happened, other players don’t get cited or only gets one week, Giteau and Pu Preez, Shaw and Du Preez, Smit and Thorn…ect. etc.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:22 am
Can I just say, everyone I know and all the media (Irish) I viewed in the aftermath fully accept the Boks deserved the Lions series…..Reading KEO would have you all believing otherwise and understandably so…..
Sure the second test was a toss-up (one of my favourite ever games incidentally) but you clearly outplayed us in the first. Heaslip was incredibally frustrated after the second test and was ungracious in defeat, I accept that…..
That has nothing to do with my previous comment which I stand by…….
December 1st, 2009 at 11:26 am
I agree with Chappy, we don’t know if he did and we don’t know if he didn’t. Opinions about what happened are just that: opinions. No harm done to HB, no video evidence, nothing to be done. So lets drop it.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:28 am
What’s this:
- 4 months ago, Peter de Villiers condones Burgers blatant and premeditated Eye-Gouging of a B & I Lion. Calling it all part of a Mans game, or some such thing.
- Now, with no evidence at all, he back-tracks and sullies the good name of Jamie Heaslip?
Strange but true.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:42 am
More confirmation that while South Africa are probably the best side in the world, they are also the worst losers and excuse makers.
This stunt of naming Jamie Heaslip was done for no other reason than to tarnish his name and was an abuse of the citing procedure. After the Lions tests Heaslip was one of the players who came out and complained very loudly about Schalk Burgers eye gouge. That p*ssed the Springboks off and so now they have invented this. Why would he complain that eye gouging is a complete no-go area and then go and do it himself???? Wake up you one-eyed South Africans. This was a fabrication.
And as for that Schalk Burger. He belongs in a zoo where he can live with the rest of the animals. And his petulant “celebration” of his try was more proof that he just doesn’t give a sh*t about what he did to Luke Fitzgerald. A complete assh*le.
There was no genuine bad blood between these two teams before but there will be now, and it is all the making of the South Africans. I think the reason for this pathetic behaviour by the Springboks is quite obvious: Three consecutive losses to Ireland.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:43 am
@Just Another Paddy: Fair enough. Still stand by my congratulating you on saturday’s game. Don’t realy know what smoke screen you are refering to exept maybe the field on saturday.
The Irish press did praise of the Boks after the B&I series. The welsh has never acknowledged that the boks won. The english press was a mixed bag and the scots only mentioned it in passing. The Irish players where extremely undignified in the defeat thou, and that is what has stuck with the Boks and their supporters.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:46 am
oh – i see kackler/teo is back…
I didnt see the eyegouging so cant comment on this matter but i’m up for a bit of banter…
@wooden spoon: u r boring
@TheTackler: like i said before if it smells like kakler it probably is
@Just Another Paddy: i agree
@cane: i thought the ‘good name’ of jamie had been cleared.. what r u on about?
December 1st, 2009 at 11:47 am
@cane: One way of seeing it.
Or you could say he made a mistake in the interview (I myself have never given an interview to a media mob in my second language, but I would assume you would struggle to express yourself as clearly as you would like to), then aplogised without reservation for those remarks “”My comments on Saturday were based on what I know of Schalk Burger as a player and not on what occurred. It was never my intention to suggest that I condone foul play. That is the last thing I would ever do and I apologise for creating any other impression.”
But sure, let’s just ignore what we don’t want to hear (his apology and retraction) and keep saying he condones dirty play, cos it’s much easier to despise than to forgive.
Even so, is he supposed to ignore a player who comes to him saying he’s been gouged? He asked the citing commissioner to investigate the incident. I wonder if you would take the same stance if say, Danny told Henry he’d been gouged by a player. Or would you demand an investigation? I wonder. Just as some saffers here don’t know for sure that he was gouged, you also don’t know for sure that he wasn’t. You’re as liable to flouting your opinions as fact as the most rabid Saffa. bloggers are.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:48 am
@ultra vires: to be fair i am rather pleased that schalk celebrated the way he did – it is exactly how most players do after scoring a great try… u need a doctor to overcome ur neurosis
December 1st, 2009 at 11:51 am
@Atreides: well said and very well explained. i recommend this to all non south africans and all those that used to be that we dont want back e.g. tackler
December 1st, 2009 at 11:53 am
@ultra vires: Rather sounds like you are inventing enough for everyone…..assumptions?
December 1st, 2009 at 11:54 am
@Bokpoot: sounds like you are suggestion otherwise – where is your evidence?
December 1st, 2009 at 11:55 am
@ultra vires: Wow you must have enjoyed watching the match 3 metres from the sidelines, wish I’d been there. (You must have been that close to the incident because you’re clearly in possession of all the facts)
But if not…WOW…you’ve just managed to squeeze about 5 false arguments into one paragraph. Ad hominem, false premise, flawed deductive reasoning, association fallacy and fundamental attribution errors….all in one paragraph!
December 1st, 2009 at 11:58 am
@sideline: Hhahah…really getting desperate there are you?