Best trying to 'gouge out' 18-week ban
Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:19
Getting down and dirty: Ireland and Saints flank Neil Best
Northampton Saints flank Neil Best has been banned for 18 weeks, after pleading guilty to illegally making contact with the eye area of London Wasps rival James Haskell during the Guinness Premiership match on September 20.
A Rugby Football Union (RFU) disciplinary panel - chaired by Jeff Blackett, and assisted by Peter Budge and Jeff Probyn - suspended Best from September 24 until January 27 for what is generally termed "eye gouging".
Best is available to play again on January 28 - which means he not only misses the next four months of European club action, but also Ireland's November internationals against Canada, New Zealand and Argentina.
Best, through his club, said he is considering his options - leaving the door open for a possible appeal.
"In the light of the detail of the judgment, the club and player are in the process of seeking legal advice and will make a further statement [at a later stage]," the club said.
The ban follows a citing by the RFU Citing Officer Ken Pattinson.
According to the citing complaint the ball was returned from deep in the Northampton half of the field after a Wasps kick ahead. The ball was carried into the Wasps half by the Northampton No.15, who was tackled by the Wasps No.12 (Ricky Flutey) at which point players and ball went to ground. The Wasps No.7 (Haskell) joined the ruck from his own side and was followed into it by the Northampton No.6 (Best) who came in from his right of the ruck.
At this point the blue scrum cap of the Wasps No.7 became visible, having been pulled upwards, away from the tackle area by the left arm of the Northampton No.6, whose elbow raised by about the same amount as Wasps No.7's head.
According to the citing complaint it is clear to see the left hand of Northampton No.6 in the face of the Wasps No.7 with the fingers of the left hand bent in a clawing position. It is also clear that contact was made to the head of the injured player in the region of the eyes.
On tape one could also see the head movement of Haskell and the grimace which are clear indicators of pain over and above the normal felt in physical contact.
Best, in a written plea, admitted that he was "reckless" when seeking to remove James Haskell from a ruck. However, he denied that he deliberately sought to make contact with the eye or eyes of Haskell.
In deciding on the sanction the panel noted that contact with an opponent's eye or eye area is a serious offence, because of the vulnerability of an eye and the risk of permanent injury. It is often the result of an insidious act and is one of the offences most abhorred by rugby players.
They also pointed out that "contact" encompasses a wide range of activity from applying pressure with an open hand to a finger intentionally inserted into the eye socket intending to cause injury.
The panel determined that, although initial contact with the eye was reckless, the continuing contact was deliberate.
However, they accepted that the player did not intend to inflict serious injury to Haskell, although he intended to apply sufficient discomfort to move Haskell out of the way and release the ball.
"The nature of the player's actions was grave," a statement said.
"Placing fingers in and around opponent's eyes constitutes one of the most serious offences in the Game because of the risk of permanent career-ending damage."
The panel adjudged that this was at the Top End of the scale of seriousness.
Having made that assessment the panel then considered the appropriate entry point in accordance with RFU Disciplinary Regulation 8.2.6 and Practice Note 3. The entry range for the Top End for contact with the eye or eye area is 24 weeks to 156 weeks (three years).
"This was a serious case because the player, having realised that he had contact with the eye area, clearly intended to apply leverage to Haskell to pull him upwards. Although we accept he did not intend to cause this injury it was the inevitable result of his actions," the DC hearing statement read.
"Had there been evidence that he did intend to injure Haskell then the entry point would have been towards the upper end of the entry range. Nevertheless, this sort of offending must be marked with a substantial sanction not only to punish the player but to mark the game's abhorrence for this type of offending and to deter others from similar offences.
"The entry point in this case is, therefore, 36 weeks. This is higher than the entry point in the case of Hartley who was found guilty of two offences of contact with the eye or eye area in the same match: in that case one of the incidents involved deliberate insertion of fingers into an opponent's eyes, but there was only superficial injury."
As a result Best was suspended from 24 September (the date of the citing) to 27 January.
