Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Citing for Dupuy?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

William Clark

unread,
Dec 14, 2009, 9:55:32 AM12/14/09
to
Any news on whether Dupuy is going to be cited for gouging Stephen
Ferris' eyes in Saturday's Ulster-Stade Francais game? TV replays
clearly showed him go after Ferris' eyes not just once, but twice, as
the latter was pinned in a ruck.

Given the seriousness with which recent gougings have been treated, one
would thank that Mr. Dupuy is set for a longish spell of rehabilitation.

William Clark

unread,
Dec 14, 2009, 2:05:46 PM12/14/09
to
In article
<wclark2-4C6644...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
William Clark <wcl...@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:

Indeed it seems there will be:

http://tiny.cc/xnR31

complete with video of the incident. Mr. Dupuy should have plenty of
time to practice his goal kicking in the next few months. Why the hell
do these morons keep doing this stuff?

SHUSSBAR

unread,
Dec 14, 2009, 4:21:39 PM12/14/09
to
On Dec 14, 1:05 pm, William Clark <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-
state.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <wclark2-4C6644.09553214122...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

>  William Clark <wcla...@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Any news on whether Dupuy is going to be cited for gouging Stephen
> > Ferris' eyes in Saturday's Ulster-Stade Francais game? TV replays
> > clearly showed him go after Ferris' eyes not just once, but twice, as
> > the latter was pinned in a ruck.
>
> > Given the seriousness with which recent gougings have been treated, one
> > would thank that Mr. Dupuy is set for a longish spell of rehabilitation.
>
> Indeed it seems there will be:
>
> http://tiny.cc/xnR31
>
> complete with video of the incident. Mr. Dupuy should have plenty of
> time to practice his goal kicking in the next few months. Why the hell
> do these morons keep doing this stuff?

Bad boy will be punish... and learn hopefully

Large Paddy

unread,
Dec 15, 2009, 3:29:18 AM12/15/09
to
On this group a few weeks ago I castigated the French for gouging and
there was the usual.. where's the evidence. If they put as much effort
into their rugby as they do in their dirt, they'd kill everyone.

David K

unread,
Dec 15, 2009, 6:07:08 AM12/15/09
to

I believe the hearing is on Thursday.

This must tend towards the high end of any sanction. He had a go, checked
the ref and had another go at the eyes. Very calculating and deliberate
indeed.

Am I correct in thinking the maximum tariff is 156 weeks?

If he gets a ban of that length:

a - I'd be surprised
b - I wouldn't be disappointed

A message needs to be sent out and it will be interesting to see if the
'powers that be' are up to it.

I imagine it will probably end up a ban for the rest of the season which
Dupuy should consider as getting off fairly lightly.

Ferris summed is up somewhat when he said he didn't mind (and indeed
expected) the odd fist in the face but eye gouging ..........

I think he controlled himself very well under the circumstances.

David K


David K

unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 10:56:50 AM12/18/09
to

Looks like Dupuy has been suspended for 6 months.

David K


didgerman

unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 11:03:12 AM12/18/09
to

A pretty lightweight punishment. If he came near me on the pitch I'd
punch first, ask questions later. I don't think he'll enjoy the game
from now on.

Mike

unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 4:13:44 PM12/18/09
to
Thank christ he didn't indulge in that kind of behaviour at Leicester.

Mike

Tim W

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 5:29:17 AM12/19/09
to

"David K" <david_s...@crystal-engravers.com> wrote in message
news:hg7ql4$irh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

> William Clark wrote:
>> Any news on whether Dupuy is going to be cited for gouging Stephen
>> Ferris' eyes in Saturday's Ulster-Stade Francais game?
[...]

> Am I correct in thinking the maximum tariff is 156 weeks?
>
> If he gets a ban of that length:
>
> a - I'd be surprised
> b - I wouldn't be disappointed
>
> A message needs to be sent out and it will be interesting to see if the
> 'powers that be' are up to it.

> ....

Six months is a hefty ban, but most dissappointing is the response from the
club and from Lievremont who want to make excuses and appeal. Wouldn't it be
better just to sack him?

My youngest son said he got eye gouged this season. So there are 13 yr old
boys now who think that a finger in the eye when the ref isn't looking is
all part of the game. I blame de Villiers and now these idiots too.

Tim w


William Clark

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 9:39:17 AM12/19/09
to
In article <1W1Xm.16823$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
"Tim W" <tim.whitt...@mtavirgin.net> wrote:

Exactly. If this crap is not stamped out at the top level, pretty soon
every schoolboy playing the game will be thinking that it is the thing
to do.

Actually, I think that 6 months is pretty light, given the especially
cynical nature of the offense - he looked for the ref, and then went
back for a second poke. As for Stade trying to claim that the photo of
Attoub was "doctored", that is just despicable. The club should get a
hefty fine/ban for that. But given how Quins got away with "Bloodgate",
I won;t hold my breath.

0 new messages