Talk:Eye-gouging (rugby union)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Irish Rugby Player Flags[edit]

I removed to tricolour from Neil Best and Alan Quinlan as Irish rugby players don't play under the tricolour but rather the IRFU flag which can't be used due to copyright issues. GainLine ♠ ♥ 09:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're going with the flags but you're into a potentially very delicate area, especially when dealing with nationality of players from Ulster. I'm suggesting to use the text "Ireland" as is the case with other articles relating to irish rugby players eg: 2009 British and Irish Lions tour to South Africa#Squad GainLine ♠ ♥ 10:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point with Best, but everyone must have a nationality and in the case of Quinlan that is surely Irish (born in Tipperary)? In the case of the Lions or other rugby articles it relates to which rugby union side they represent, but here we are talking solely of their nationality? Should we keep Ireland for Quinlan and have a blank space for Best, even though the Union flag is the official Flag of Northern Ireland? Or show the Union flag, but add a footnote explaining "home union" versus nationality? — Deon Steyn (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You're 100 percent correct with Quinlan, the problem is with Ulster based players such as Best the Union flag may not be appropriate due to politicial issues etc. This problem rears itself a lot. See:- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union. Thats generally why Ireland is used as it the most neutral GainLine ♠ ♥ 11:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen any of the discussions, but it is obviously a tricky situation. I changed it for Best and used the {{noflag}} template so that the spacing stays regular for that column. — Deon Steyn (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a far from ideal situation and it doen's look like getting resolved anytime soon, I guess thats the best for the time being GainLine ♠ ♥ 11:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restored Flag of Ireland for Jennings and Quinlan (and Template:noflag for Neil Best as per the above discussion. Please do not confuse the player's nationality with the probelm surrounding the flag of the national rugby team of Ireland. — Deon Steyn (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Use of flags for sportspeople the appropriate flag is that of sporting affiliation not nationality. In the case of Ireland we can't use the flag. If nationality was used then Best would have a flag - not sure if he is an Irish citizen or a UK citizen - also, Dylan Hartley would have a union flag and should Parisse have an Argentinian flag? noq (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the content you accidentally reverted in your flag edit and then added your correction to the flags. — Deon Steyn (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion[edit]

What are the criteria for inclusion in this list? The term gouging is not used in the IRB laws or regulations - Regulation 17 appendix 1 is the only part that refers to this and that refers only to "contact with the eyes or eye area". I notice that some players have been removed from this list because they apparently where only guilty of contact with the eyes and not with gouging. So, what qualifies as gouging and what is only contact with the eyes? noq (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noq is correct on this one. Reg 17 relates only to making contact with eyes or eye area. There is no specific offense of gouging, only different levels of seriousness. Lower End, Mid, and Top End. As it stands, Shane Jennings is included but his offence was at lower end of making contact. I'm suggesting a rename of article and expansion and noting at what range plater was cited on. GainLine ♠ ♥ 13:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do about this. It appears that this is the only list of players banned for an offence - do we need a list for each offence? Do we need this list at all? What alternative name to use? noq (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Valid points. I'm not so sure, I mean what is the threshold for inclusion? Internationals? Provincial? Magners League/Premiership/Top 14? etc. The name should probably be List of players banned for making contact with eyes or eye area but its a good point about whether we need a list at all, is there an article for players banned for stamping? GainLine ♠ ♥ 15:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The multiple issues mentioned makes me lean toward not needing a list like this at all. It's an offence that is in its nature one concerned with degrees of severity. In a game hands and arms and knees AND fingers make contact with players' faces all the time, but only some of those are deemed dangerous and others as very dangerous. Where do you draw the line? And as mentioned, why only for this offence? Should we go as far as to have a List of players penalised for being off-side, and if not - where do you draw the line? The article has limited use, can't really continue in its current state, will have great trouble being defined clearly and does not strike me as extremely encyclopedic. My vote is for delete. - Sahmejil (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is disingenuous to compare eye-gouging to being offside. The IRB itself referred to the act as "eye-gouging" (even though the rule book does not use the term) and called it particularly heinous, so much so that they will shortly change the rules: "The IRB is firmly of the view that there is no place in rugby for illegal or foul play and the act of eye gouging is particularly heinous". I would include the Burger case, because it gained notoriety for being "eye-gouging" even though the eventual sanction technically did not classify it as such. Overall these incidents are most certainly notable (grab headlines every time) and few enough in number to warrant a list. I'm not sure about a more inclusive list ("making contact with eye area"), because that could be larger and of less interest and might confuse casual readers less versed in the intricacies of the IRB rulebook. — Deon Steyn (talk) 10:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my original question - what counts as "eye-gouging" and what is merely "contact with the eye or eye area". The rules refer to the latter. The former is an ill-defined term that will be interpreted differently by different people - see the edit history over the Burger case. noq (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have split the table to separate cases such as Burger which were technically found not to be eye gouging (but should still be included based on notoriety and media reporting). The man in the street might not make a distinction between the two, but technically the IRB judicial officer did stating: "I am unable to conclude that there was eye gouging in the sense of a ripping or aggressive intrusion of the eye area". I think he is saying that Burger raked his hands across the face (and eye) as opposed to eye-gouging where you actually stick your finger into the eye socket (also described as "finger scraping along the back wall of your eye socket" by NZ player here: [1]). Personally I think it's a pretty grim distinction and the layperson probably assumes a finger anywhere near the eye is "eye gouging", but technically it is not.  Deon Steyn (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally removed the split - no edit conflict warning - but having reviewed it I would not agree with the way you have split things. How do you determine which is which. I have just read the ERC Rugby decision on the Julien Dupuy case [2] which does not explicitly find him guilty of eye-gouging. It also refers to Bernard Lapasset, Chairman of the IRB describing the Burger and Parisse cases as eye-gouging. Again lots of room for confusion. noq (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that splitting the table is an improvement. There is much confusion and dispute in several of the cases - notably with the Tincu case where the sanction was not applied in French domestic competition due to "insufficient evidence". So why move Burger to a separate table? The decision on the Jennings case [3] also does not meet your definition of eye-gouging. noq (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My earlier List of players penalised for being off-side-question was just an extreme example of the difficulties in defining the notability and criteria for inclusion of this article - rest assured the two offences are not being equated. I am just asking why there should be a list for THIS offence? Why not for biting/stamping/head-butting/punching/high-tackling/referee-directed-aggression etc...that is all considered dangerous, heinous and have specific rules to guard against them. I would also imagine very few citation verdicts explicitly mention "gouging", so the only way to define inclusion on this list clearly, fairly and unambiguously is to include ALL "contact with face area" offenses - which (as stated earlier) does make it into a very long list with limited value, which will also be very hard to keep accurate at non-national level. I also don't think the split works. Either all eye-contact-offences like Burger's should be mentioned, OR the inclusion criteria defined otherwise, which causes a problem. Hence I confirm my earlier opinion of deletion. - Sahmejil (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dates[edit]

Just to let people know, some additions on the list is out of chronological order and will require some attention soon. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (May 2010 #1)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

List of rugby union players banned for contact with eyes or the eye area of an opponent → List of rugby union players banned eye gouging — Per WP:COMMONNAME eye gouging is the common name for contact with eyes or the eye area of an opponent it should be explained in the lead what eye gouging is not having a ridiculous title no one would ever search for Gnevin (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It was moved from that to this because it was going to be deleted as being too vague under that title. If you're concerned about users not finding this page then make the proposed move target a redirect to here. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible addition[edit]

I have found a story here about a player who was blinded after being the victim of an eye-gouge and I think that once the culprint is found then it would be a good addition to the list. I'm posting the link here so we don't lose it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move (May 2010 #2)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

List of rugby union players banned for contact with eyes or the eye area of an opponent → Eye gouging in rugby union — Per WP:COMMONNAME eye gouging is the common name for contact with eyes or the eye area of an opponent it should be explained in the lead what eye gouging is not having a ridiculous title no one would ever search for

we include the inclusion criteria in the article not the title
Also this is fast becoming an article about the offence in general Gnevin (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: (As I said before) It was moved from that to this because it was going to be deleted as being too vague under that title. If you're concerned about users not finding this page then make the proposed move target a redirect to here. If you have a problem with the opening sentence, why not have a go at it yourself? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've said we don't use title to limit the scope of articles or lists. I'm not concerned about finding this page but we should use the common name not the official description . There is nothing wrong with the opening sentence it does what it's meant to do . Define what eye gouging is Gnevin (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lets really use the title to limit this article since it might be deleted .How about a RM too List of rugby union players banned for contact with eyes or the eye area of an opponent while playing in a international Test matches, top level national or regional competitions Gnevin (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: As per the intro, there is NO offence of gouging in the laws and regs of the game. I renamed the article to bring it into a tight definition and would be the first to admit its far from ideal and would welcome someone else having a crack at it but calling it gougin would bring us back to square one. GainLine ♠ ♥ 15:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would calling it gougin bring us back to square one, if we maintain the same inclusion criteria? This list/article was save from deletion by content not by a title changeGnevin (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt you'll be supporting my next RM of Test match (rugby union) to Full international (rugby union) as the IRB don't use the term Test match! Gnevin (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.. and after that Rugby 7 to seven a side (rugby union) [4]
Thats being pretty disengenuous. I think its important that it be kept as tight as possible and close to the regs definition to avoid confusion. That picture is pretty horrible, made my eyes water! GainLine ♠ ♥ 16:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Image "police" (as they've been reffered to) are trying to get it removed with the reason being that it can be easily replaced or have something else to portray the message The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We keep it as tight as possible using the intro . Hence we explain what the inclusion criteria are just like in the caps ,states and expensive stuff. Wouldn't you agree this has developed past a list and is more about eye gouging in RU in general rather than a list of players?
P.S I hate the wiki image police ;) Gnevin (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<=It has a lot to do with gouging, but there are some players on that list who haven't gouged. Howabout Rugby union players banned for eye contact with an opponent? or Eye Contact in Rugby union. Short and more concise GainLine ♠ ♥ 16:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Contact in Rugby union . I like it Gnevin (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The inclusion definition for the list now includes things that people would not regard as gouging so calling it gouging would be misleading. How would you change the inclusion criteria to include only what a consensus of people would regard as gouging?noq (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image[edit]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_May_10#File:RUeyegouge.jpg . I am trying to convince these people that RU players don't go around poking each others eyes out so often that you can wonder up too your local park on any day of the week and get a image that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. I am not having much joy. Maybe you can have a look Gnevin (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

I tend to think of "eye contact" meaning two people locking gazes... Is this really appropriate in this instance?--MacRusgail (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The name is ridiculous - nobody ever calls it that, and it means something else entirely. Suggest (per COMMONNAME) "Eye gouging in rugby union". --hippo43 (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess I understand the objection to calling it "eye gouging", so I've been bold and moved it to the proper name as used in the laws. --hippo43 (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page again, per WP:COMMONNAME. I understand the opposition to this in the preceding section, but it's based on rhetoric rather than consideration of our actual naming conventions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally against the rename, there's a list in this article most of which are players that were banned for contact with the eye, not gouging GainLine ♠ ♥ 21:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting sick and tired of this rename ping-pong. Gainline has a point, there are people in there that didn't gouge but did something similar. The eye contact title as better. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Contact with eyes or the eye area (rugby union)" is an insane title. If reliable sources refer to the majority of instances technically deemed as eye contact as "eye gouging" then it's basically the common name for the subject regardless of whether it's accurate or not. We can sort that out in the lede of the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris is correct. The naming convention supports using the common name, even when it is not technically correct. I may have missed something in there, but I can't see any part of it which would support the alternatives. In the cases listed, reliable sources have generally used the term "eye-gouging". In fact, the hyphenated form seems most prevalent, so if there is no consensus otherwise, i'll change it to 'Eye-gouging' in the next couple of days.
However, from a BLP point of view, it is probably appropriate to detail what the findings were against each offender - it would not be kosher to leave in the implication that Player X gouged someone's eyes if the contact was explicitly found to be unintentional. --hippo43 (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you look at the Martin Corry entry source, it says it was for "Unintentional contact with eye area" but he still got a ban for it. That I think is to show the current page title is incorrect. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, nobody is saying that "eye gouging" is the more technically correct term. It is, however, the term used in most of the sources presently supplied, and when it comes to naming articles the common name takes precedence over accuracy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris is entirely correct. The Corry incident is widely referred to as 'gouging' by many other reliable sources - just Google it. --hippo43 (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Got to type this quick, I'm supposed to be at work here) However the IRB doesn't use the words as this page does state that "the term "gouging" is not used in the IRB's laws or regulations" Which suggests it isn't really commonname unless the papers get a hold of it and blow it all out of proportion (as they so often do) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<=What is a reliable source in this case? Should it be a headline writer or the sports governing body that don't have an offence of eye gouging? From a BLP issue, you have Martin Corry being tagged as gouging when it wasn't a gouge. GainLine ♠ ♥ 08:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a BLP standpoint, it is important to clarify what the list refers to, and what the findings were in each case. However, everyone involved in rugby - players, coaches, fans, media and (at times) governing bodies - refers to "eye-gouging". To suggest otherwise is not credible. That the governing body also uses a more technical, less sensational term for the offence is neither surprising nor a policy-based reason to rename this article. --hippo43 (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you could look at WP:UCN which says (and I quote) "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common." Eye gouging is an innacurate description as the list includes those banned for something similar but not gouging. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second that GainLine ♠ ♥ 11:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Gnevin (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on what you presume the "as implied by reliable sources" part to be modifying. I rather think that it's intended to mean that reliable sources have to find the title inaccurate. In this case, reliable sources regularly use it themselves. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the IRB is a reliable source, they wrote those laws after all! Anyway I don't think that wikipedia policy is open to interpretation rather you should just take it as it says which seems to be in favour of changing the title as it is an innacurate description of the content. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the IRB does not say that "gouging" is inaccurate. It makes no mention of "gouging" as you pointed out yourself. Secondly, the IRB is a primary source, and only one primary source at that. Thirdly, of course the naming guidelines are "open to interpretation"; they aren't set in stone and in this case the intended meaning is ambiguous. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, actually the IRB does use the term 'eye-gouging' in its statement quoted in the Scotsman article. It's no surprise that governing bodies use legal-sounding terms when framing the laws instead of common (but not entirely accurate) terms - the IRB refers to "temporary suspension" and everyone else says a player has been "sin-binned". Football's governing bodies refer to "simulation", everyone else calls it "diving".
"Eye-gouging" is the common name, it's used by everyone in the sport, including the IRB, and the article makes clear the actual wording of the game's laws. The only sensible solution is to use the common name here. --hippo43 (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<=Not when its a highly perjorative term and there is list of players who have not been banned for gouging GainLine ♠ ♥ 19:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is "perjorative" or not is up for debate. Regardless, the current title is definitely not appropriate per our naming guidelines. Parentheses are used solely to disambiguate between articles and not subjects, so at the very least the title should be contact with eyes or the eye area. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
contact with eyes or the eye area? seriously? In what context? This is an article about an offence in rugby union and at the risk of repeating myself, There is no offence of gouging in rugby, despite what (sensationally headlined) press reports say. There is only varying levels of the offence of making contact with an opponents eyes. GainLine ♠ ♥ 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do not appear to have read WP:DAB. Please do so, and my point about the lack of need for parentheses should be apparent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gainline, you are making a false assumption - the article is not about "an offence in rugby union". It is about an act which takes place in rugby union, not just in the narrow sense of the game's rules. The act in question is universally called "eye-gouging" in common conversation, high-quality reliable sources (not just sensational headlines) and by the IRB itself. That there is also a specific offense in the game's regulations, with the more circumspect, legalistic name "Contact....." is an important part of the article, and needs to be included. It is not however, the best way to name the article, in terms of both policy and common sense. --hippo43 (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, given that there has been no more discussion or objection, I've moved it back to Eye-gouging. --hippo43 (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<=Considering I pretty much rewrote this article to save it from AFD, I know what its about. The term eye-goguing is sensationalist and inaccurate. There is mo consensus for this move. GainLine ♠ ♥ 14:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a lot like an ownership problem to me. One editor, no matter how much they have contributed to an article, cannot decide what it's about. There has never been, as far as I can see, consensus for any of the names used here. We need to work together to decide the best one in terms of policy. If there is a good policy-based argument for not using the most common name, per the naming convention, it hasn't been made here yet. --hippo43 (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This should be settled here and now, it is ridiculous that this article has been moved back and forth like it has. This is quoted from WP:COMMONNAME (emphasis is mine).
Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article.
Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic. Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name.
1. what is the most common name for this subject, as read from the referneces in this article: eye gouging - 10, contact with eye area - 0
2. We are guided away from being pedantic, and using the technical term. Eye-gouging is the common term used for this subject EVEN though the rules may be broader in scope - it is the term most people use for 'contact with the eye'. In fact I would hazard to say that in common usage nine out of ten rugby followers would not make the fine line delineations made by the IRB, they would just say, "yeah that is eye-gouging. That speaks to the COMMONNAME guidelines that have been provided for us: title the article as most would refer to it. The article body will make the delineations between the nuances. SauliH (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no ownership issue here. My concerns here are media sources tend towards sensationalism and it doesn't mean they are correct in the use of the term. My second concern is that gouging is a particularly heinous act and there are a list of individuals who have been sanctioned for various levels of the offence of contact with the eyes and NOT gouging. Form me this is a a potential BLP violation. GainLine ♠ ♥ 16:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your concern is well noted. I think that article after this discussion will make quite clear the differences between the nuances of the act. Regardless of severity, a player that gets sanctioned for foul play is sanctioned for foul play. The article should spell out what each case actually was.SauliH (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for... Not again! Look, according to (as I say again) WP:UCN which says (and I quote) "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common." this shows that the eye-gouging title is incorrect as it is innacurate. I'm tired of this rename ping-pong The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (July 2010)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Feel free to open new move discussions on other titles as well. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eye-gouging (rugby union) → Contact with eyes or the eye area (rugby union) — The current name is a violation of WP:UCN as many included in here have NOT been banned for eye-gouging but contact with the eyes which there is a subtle difference between Gouging and touching the area around the eye |Relisted billinghurst sDrewth 04:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC) | The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: As nom The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support GainLine ♠ ♥ 08:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong disagree As per discussion above. SauliH (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per WP:UCN issues and above discussion Gnevin (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this offence is commonly known as "gouging", even if they've not gone to the lengths of putting the squeeze on. 81.110.111.164 (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The suggestion is a bit of a mouth-full. Why not just Contact with the eyes (rugby union)? We can sacrifice a little in accuracy for the sake or brevity. - Hibernian1 —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment for a main article title, this I could agree withSauliH (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, never heard anyone sit around and politely discuss the proposal in that form, it has always been eye-gouging, blame the press all you like, however, it is what it is. From reviewing the article, it isn't clear that the crunch matter isn't in fact the gouging issue. billinghurst sDrewth 04:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it violates WP:UCN to leave it in this current state. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Eye-petting is not the problem. "Contact with the eyes" is pretty weak. If anything, I'd say "Illegal contact with the eyes (rugby union), but I think gouging is a generally accepted term. Ocaasi (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposed title doesn't obey the rules for the need for parentheses in our naming guidelines. That this has been pointed out before and yet ignored is troublesome. As for the "subtle difference" in question, there is no such thing. "Gouging" is the common name, whereas "contact with the eyes or the eye area" is the technical name used in the rule book. Were we to assume that any use of common language to describe the breaking of a law or rule when naming articles was a BLP/neutrality violation then we'd be opening a huge can of worms. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is quite a subtle difference between gouging and contact with the eye area. Gouging is deliberatly sticking your finger in someone's eye socket and trying to rip their eye out. Contact with the eye area can be having your hand near someones eye with a possible accidental poke involved. WP:UCN states this current name is incorrect and needs to be changed if not to this one, maybe to Hibernian1's sugesstion that seems like a fairer compromise. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Insomuch as that only the deliberate act of poking is a notable encyclopedia subject, it's the only one we need concern ourselves with. What is getting confused here is that first an article is written on eye-poking, then someone adds people who were penalised for eye contact without having actually poked someone in the eye, and then there's a big argument about what the article should be titled. The simple answer is to remove entries for people who didn't poke someone in the eye dleiberately. This isn't an almanac for sports rules infractions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the IRB does ban anyone for eye-gouging per WP:BLP and WP:UCN we'd have no list and no examples Gnevin (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entire reason we have an article here is because of the coverage the subject has received in reliable secondary sources. Those sources almost always focus on deliberate eye-poking. Whether or not the IRB maintains a list is irrelevant, as this is (or should be) a subject on the controversy and not the specific law of the game. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at this point it looks like no consensus, in which case the status quo would be maintained. Is there a desire to relist and have the discussion continue? billinghurst sDrewth 23:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose a merge into Foulplay in rugby union, as that article should exist in any case, and "Eye goug../conta.. whatever" would reside as a section within that article. Until that article is written, the status quo should be maintained. SauliH (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alternative to renaming ping-pong[edit]

I have been thinking about this article a little more after reading the IRB recommended sanctionable offenses at See Appendix 1 of regulation 17 (p242-4). Eye-gouging is one offense among 25 listed offenses. One option we have not considered is moving this article to a section heading under Sanctionable offenses in rugby union (or something more elegantly titled) where the full list of offenses can be listed and expanded. If we end up creating a main article for Eye-gouging (or Contact with eyes or the eye area, then we should probably have an article for:

Testicle grabbing or twisting or squeezing
Verbal abuse of Players based on Religion, Race, Colour, or National or Ethnic Origin
Biting (rugby union)
Verbal Abuse of Match Officials

Now I use the accurate titles for these offenses not to put a point on the naming issue, but to indicate that there are a number of notable subjects that should o be expounded on, but I would argue NOT in main articles. I think it would be far better to formulate one article for the whole subject of sanctionable offenses, and create one GA out of the whole group, rather than battle to cover each topic individually - and potentially having mediocre covering of the topic as a whole. This is following the idea set forth at the WP help page Help:Section#Sections vs. separate pages vs. transclusion:

4. more likelihood of editorial cohesion of a concept compared to having several definitions likely to be independently edited

I really dislike the name that is being proposed, not because I think it absolutely must be Eye-gouging - it is just a horrible, horrible name, that does not fit into the common usage principle even remotely. I would argue that this is a far better way forward than simply butting heads on the subject.SauliH (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a common sense way of overcoming the problem and certainly helps remove conflict. A lot of the problem with this article as it stands is lists. Would you support the inclusion of lists in any such future article? I beleive it may make it very unwieldy. GainLine ♠ ♥ 09:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of these other offences are notable enough on there own or as a whole Gnevin (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does that include this artcle? If not, what is different about this offence that makes it notable when other offences with similar sanctions are not? noq (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't include this article . This is just my own pov but gouging gets alot more column inches than x has been banned for 4 weeks for kicking etc Gnevin (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Foul play in rugby union certainly is notable. People unfamiliar with the game have a stereotype view of it being a game of unruliness - a sense of anything goes if you like. The novice should be familiarized with how foul play is defined in the subject of rugby, and this encompasses all of the offenses listed. I totally agree that Testicle grabbing or twisting or squeezing and others should never grace the pages of wikipedia, but as a section title it could do with some elaboration.
With regards to lists of offenders, I think we need to remember that this is an encyclodepia, not an almanac to record every occurrence of something. Specific cases should be used to enrich the content of the article to show how the laws of game are implemented, but not to the point of chronically every occurrence. So does a list go in the article? The way it is now, I don't think adds a whole lot. These cases are better referred to in the individual players articles. SauliH (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, if people wanted to look for those banned for contact with the eye area (or "gouging") then this would be a good point of reference otherwise people would be clueless about who to look for. For example someone may know that Burger got banned for gouging but they may not have known that Corry was banned for contact with the eye area if they didn't have the list. The redirects for gouging remain in place so it's still easy to get to like County derry redirects to County Londonderry, a sometimes common name but redirected to the correct technical term. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do see what you mean. Is this the role of an encyclopedia though? If so (I hesitate to agree), to keep a Foul play in rugby union article lightweight, I would propose a subsidiary list of all sanctioned offenses, in tabular format - if people see the notability of such a thing. With columns that can be resorted by the user ala List of Australia national rugby union players. BUT it should only be a list of players who actually were suspended from playing as a result of the offense. SauliH (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Corry/Burger comparison is fraught with problems - indeed the Burger case is part of what prompted this whole debate in the first place. Eye-gouging is rightly considered to be a heinous offence but the problems arise because most of the media will describe any ban for contact with the eye or eye area as gouging. Unfortunately no definition of what counts as eye-gouging as opposed to contact with the eye or eye area has been found which makes list of this offence contentious. An article that discusses various types of bans with examples would be my preferred way to go. Most bans however should be limited to being reported on the appropriate players own article. noq (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this brings them all together for better collection for reference not to mention it would save time for people looking for things like this to be all on one page rather than just randomly looking around. That is what we're here for, isn't it? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and this brings us full circle - if you want a list, then what qualifies for entry in the list? Is it only for "eye-gouging" however defined, or bans for other offences? noq (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think really the opening paragraph answers that question. It says its for "Contact with eyes or the eye area of an opponent" which does back up the idea for the similar actions that aren't gouging but fall under that category. I think maybe this page should add a rough guideline to what each ban genrally means such as contact with the eye area is 6 weeks and gouging is 20 weeks (as an example) or maybe add another column to the list to say what the players were officially charged with according to the IRB. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you want an article called eye-gouging, including any contact with the eye or eye area, but still make a distinction between them. Are you saying that only if the sanction is over a certain number of weeks that it is eye-gouging? At how many weeks does it become gouging? Where else is this definition of eye-gouging to be found? noq (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to have failed to notice I only want the correct technical term used with common name redirects per WP:UCN. The weeks thing was only a rough off-the-head idea and probibly wasn't such a good idea after all but the other suggestion may work. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review leading to possible Good article nomination[edit]

I want to inform all editors who have contributed towards this article in talk or in edits, that I have nominated the page to be peer reviewed in a hope to gain some outside input which hopefully could lead to this page becoming Wikipedia's first Rugby Union specific Good Article. The review can be found at: Wikipedia:Peer review/Eye-gouging (rugby union)/archive1 and any input from anyone would be greatly helpful. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the list really necessary[edit]

I came here from the peer review page, but thought my comments would fit better on the talk page. Do we really need to include a list of players banned for eye gouging/contact with the eyes. I would suggest putting the "high profile" (as judged by media coverage) cases into prose form. That would avoid most of the BLP concerns mentioned above, allow the title to stay eye gouging and probably make this a better article in the process. I agree with SauliH's idea about creating a Foulplay in rugby union article. AIRcorn (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has already been discussed at length above, although the foul play article remains red so I will assume no one is trying to create said article. If someone is let me know, otherwise I am feeling a little bold and have some spare time so might give it a burl.AIRcorn (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the need as this page is about an offense that can change lives forever and I do not feel that just lumping it in with offenses such as punching and stamping is a good idea beacuse as wrong as they may be, they don't have a common potential to blind someone as this does. It's a lot similar to the fact we have Spear tackle away from all other foul play as they are offense that can alter someone's livlyhood and should not be just piled in with other generic offenses. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While eye-gouging and spear tackles are indeed bad, so is biting, kicking/stomping someone's head, high tackles etc [5]. To be perfectly honest this article is a long way off being a Good Article and I feel the best way to improve it would be to "lump" it in with these other offenses. AIRcorn (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Play in Rugby Union[edit]

Have started an article on dangerous play in rugby union. It has a lot more development to do, I ripped most of it from here, but I thought I would add it to main space early so other editors can give their opinion and edit it. I think merging this would be a good idea, although that doesn't solve the problem of the list. Sorry about jumping in, but the above conversations seemed to have gone stale and I am more of a just do it type person. I imagine some would prefer the title to be Foul play in rugby union, but I chose "dangerous" as foul plays definition by the IRB included obstruction and repeated infringements, which seemed out of this type of articles scope. Let me know what you think. AIRcorn (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

This section is woefully biased. The claim that it is not regarded as harshly in the Southern hemisphere is not backed up by the given reference. The Peter Bills article only talks about De Villiers - not the whole of the southern hemisphere. The Loe case being the first reported major case is not backed up - the only thing that you can say is it is the first case you have found a reference to - not the same thing. And having a southern hemisphere case does not back up the first claim. noq (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does say That [the Burger suspension] was regarded with general derision in most of the northern hemisphere yet largely accepted south of the equator. That is only Bills opinion and does not support the claim that all eye gouging is regarded less harshly in the SH at all. There is no support for the Loe claim that I could find either. AIRcorn (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well OK, maybe it could be re-worded. Maybe this is abetter source to say that gouging is punished harsher in the NH and not so much in the SH. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote a lot of history to reflect the sources better. AIRcorn (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are incidences where no official complaint raised to be included?[edit]

The question above. I am wondering this in relation to an event in the RWC 2011 final involving Richie McCaw (being eye-gouged), but no official complaint has been raised, though there is pretty solid evidence (it was caught on camera), and Richie did acknowledge the occurrence (that is to say, he said he was poked in the eye). I have filled out a section for it on the table (and it is there, but hidden), but seeing that all of the other occurrences were recognized by rugby authorities, whereas there has been no issue made over this (except by the public, various rugby veterans, and in the press), I wondered whether to include it. Gott wisst (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a good idea. Because then you'd end up with a whole load of media allegations in there and also at times, the culprint wasn't identified so theres little point then in putting it in. The table is mainly for those cited and punished for gouging or contact with the eye/eye-area. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Including suspected cases makes the inclusion criteria far too wide and more prone to arguments over individual merit. Only including those cited takes that decision out of our hands. AIRcorn (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Gott wisst (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eye-gouging (rugby union). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"List of rugby union players banned for contact with eyes or the eye area of an an opponent" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of rugby union players banned for contact with eyes or the eye area of an an opponent. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 01:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eye-gouging_(rugby_union)&oldid=1201882103"