Lee's 'struggle' with officials missing Mateo Carreras eye-contact inciden

[Shugs]

He's a lucky boy. Looking at the "scoring" matrix I'd definitely have had a tick against "reckless" and "need for deterrent".

[MarleyWasp]

The Judgement says:

"His evidence was that he had intended to 'irritate' the Wasps player but that he had not intended to cause any harm in his action," said a statement from the independent disciplinary panel.

"He accepted on reflection that by making contact with the eye of Josh Bassett he risked causing serious injury though this was a momentary action without thought for the consequences. Thankfully, there was no injury caused other than a temporary discomfort.

"The player had admitted the offence which the panel accepted took some courage given the stigma attached to offences of this nature.

"He has a clean disciplinary record over a number of years as a professional player, expressed remorse for his actions and engaged with the process positively despite requiring the assistance of a translator. In line with the regulatory framework, the panel applied 50% mitigation."

I'm sorry but what a load of nonsense. Where is the courage in admitting a charge of eye gouging when the level of evidence against you is so great that only a total idiot would refuse to? To say he had courage is just as appalling as the act itself or the failure of the match officials to deal with it at the time.

I also don't agree that for intentional contact with the eyes failure to cause an injury should be mitigation. All Carreras's failure to cause an injury means is that he is an incompetent eye gouger.

He's a lucky boy. Looking at the "scoring" matrix I'd definitely have had a tick against "reckless" and "need for deterrent".

Totally agree re. need for a deterrent. This happened on live TV where it was clearly visible and discussed at length, not just on match day but several times throughout the weekend. It was also shared widely on social media. Had it happened in a pay per view Championship match where there's 15-25% of the number of cameras it wouldn't have been so widely shared or be such a talking point.

This was a chance to send a clear message that if you intentionally gouge someone you will be banned for months. The Panel failed to send any noticeable message/deterrent from future acts.

[13thWarrior]

One of the replies on Twitter suggests the deterrent box is only ticked if there is a current RFU memorandum out for this type of offence.

I accept that we must reward a guilty plea to stop everyone always pleading innocent, but a 50% reduction seems a bit much.

[Rifleman Harris]

Also where is the courage required if you know admitting it will reduce your ban by 50%.

[Neils]

Bottled it.

The whole system needs a common sense revamp.

[baldpaul101]

Wow... that is just unbelievable.

Its almost as if they are looking for reasons to reduce his sentence.

i get the "pleading guilty saves everyone time & money" argument but to have mitigating factors such as:

"he had not intended to cause any harm in his action,"

"this was a momentary action without thought for the consequences. Thankfully, there was no injury caused other than a temporary discomfort."

"The player had admitted the offence which the panel accepted took some courage given the stigma attached to offences of this nature."

"expressed remorse for his actions and engaged with the process positively despite requiring the assistance of a translator."

You would not be surprised if his lawyer had written that its so self serving.

if all of that is "in line with the regulatory framework" then that needs reviewing substantially.


I would like to see a coach make a stand on something like this for once, not be diplomatic & come out & say this kind of nonsense is not acceptable.

[MarleyWasp]

The maximum reduction needs to be capped at a set number of weeks. To give someone a 50% reduction on an offence as serious as intentional eye gouging that starts at 18 weeks is a mockery.

[mike909]

Agree with fellow Wasps above

That's one of the most gutless outcomes that I've seen in a long time and this is BS of the first order

He accepted on reflection that by making contact with the eye of Josh Bassett he risked causing serious injury though this was a momentary action without thought for the consequences

Yeah, right....

[DGP Wasp]

What the hell has the need for a translator got to do with it?  If Brookes had turned up at his hearing claiming to speak only Mandarin, would they have been equally impressed?

[MarleyWasp]

What the hell has the need for a translator got to do with it?  If Brookes had turned up at his hearing claiming to speak only Mandarin, would they have been equally impressed?

What language were they translating from, Spanish or Bulls**t?!

[Sting]

He's a lucky boy. Looking at the "scoring" matrix I'd definitely have had a tick against "reckless" and "need for deterrent".

He's a lucky boy. Looking at the "scoring" matrix I'd definitely have had a tick against "reckless" and "need for deterrent".

+1 when RFU wants throw book at someone then they do. When they don't, they don't. DORs in a difficult position because some will play diplomatic not wanting to upset RFU and any future career prospects. Risking potentially blinding someone is not a mid entry offence. The fact that he did not was a matter of luck. Shameful verdict.

[Nigel Med]

So apparently he only intended to "irritate" Josh not cause any harm. Seriously? You "irritate" someone by swearing at them, insulting their ability, team, family et cetera. Sticking your finger in someones eye does not irritate them, it blinds them.

I cannot see a shred of mitigation here, he has admitted making deliberate, pre meditated contact with Josh's eye after the whistle had gone. He had to plead guilty because the video evidence was overwhelming.

"Thankfully there was no injury caused other than a temporary discomfort" One: how do you know? Did you get a report from an eye specialist? That sort of assault could easily cause long term sight damage. Second: It was pure luck that it only caused "temporary discomfort" The intent was clear and obvious, if they believed for a second that he wasn't attempting to injure Josh the panel are deluded.

Dreadful decision, unbelievably lenient. What an awful message that puts out. Once again they're punishing based on outcome not intent which is just wrong. He gets a lenient ban because he's crap at gouging? Genius.

Looking forward to the apology from the RFU to Lee, Josh and all at Wasps for the staggering failure of the officials to deal with the incident at the time which led to that idiot playing the full 80 minutes. Highlighted by the TV coverage during the match immediately after the incident which showed exactly what he did so the match officials have precisely zero excuse. Further highlighted of course by the incident in the France-Wales match which was dealt with immediately by a professional team of officials in spite of arguably being less serious as it was accidental contact with the eye during play with what appeared from TV footage to be a flat hand.

[MarleyWasp]

Looking forward to the apology from the RFU to Lee, Josh and all at Wasps for the staggering failure of the officials to deal with the incident at the time which led to that idiot playing the full 80 minutes. Highlighted by the TV coverage during the match immediately after the incident which showed exactly what he did so the match officials have precisely zero excuse.

I wonder what would have happened had Carreras scored a last minute, match winning try...

[13thWarrior]

How does the incident not get classes as "reckless", yet have mitigation for "without thought to the consequences"? Also, if he did it with the express aim of annoying Bassett, then he is clearly thinking about the consequences...

[Bloke in North Dorset]

How does the incident not get classes as "reckless", yet have mitigation for "without thought to the consequences"? Also, if he did it with the express aim of annoying Bassett, then he is clearly thinking about the consequences...

If he did it with the aim of trying to irritate Josh it was in the hope of getting a penalty or higher. That should be an offence in itself, not mitigation. They should ha added an extra couple of week.