I refereed RU for a while. One of the things we were taught is you are not mind readers and can only make decisions on facts and not what you think the player might of intending. In this case the referee doesn't know what the players in intentions were but the facts are the defenders fingers "attacked" the eyes of the ball carrier. Based on facts an attack to the eye and either a red or yellow card.

This was a straight red card. It's a attack to the face with an open hand which looks like a blatant gouge.

Agreed. One thing I'm not sure about is when the referee can ask the 4th official. Multiple replays whilst Lineham was being treated showed it was at least a penalty. Sometimes onfield decisions are changed then the ref's received a word in his ear. If that had been Danny McGuire instead of Lineham, in a meaningful game, my view is that there would have been a penalty as a minimum and more likely a dismissal.

I don't think there was intent but that's irrelevant. Should have been a penalty minimum but a sending off would have been justified IMO

Do you seriously believe in your own self loving opinion that a professional sportsman has the time and the inclination to gouge a winger in the tackle from that angle? Are you and Jake married....or do you just attend the same self righteous seminars?

She disagrees with pretty much everything I say so we definitely could be married.

I haven't accused him of purposely gouging and specifically said I didn't believe it was intentional but that's irrelevant. The rules aren't about intent, they're about what happened

If you go into a tackle with your hand looking like a claw and rake it down / jab it into an opponents face it's likely to cause damage. Don't think there's an accusation of it being premeditated, however it 'looks' pretty bad in the footage and warranted action by the officials.

High tackle for me, to not get a penalty was a joke. Sending off would of been very harsh

We didn't even get a penalty. Really would like to see Ch*lds reasoning on that one.

Definite penalty.

If his palm is flat, would it have been a slap, and or head high?

I think the fact it was a claw, and eye damage, the ref's decision became more around was it a deliberate gouge? And came to the conclusion it wasn't. He didn't consider the head shot.

If that was a flat palm, it a slap in the face all day and a pen at min.

I agree - certainly an attack to the head - and you see so much less get pulled up for (ie Wattsy last night with an arm around the neck!)

It will be cited no doubt and looked at - but certainly a penalty and on report for me.

Blatant gouging? Come on, get real. He's gone for a grab of the shoulder (hence why his fingers are pinching inwards) and got it wrong (players tend to move!).

Penalty for the careless grab, but nothing more. He never "attacked the eyes". The eyes got in the way of what he was going for, which is an accident.

Agree. Reason he goes high I think is because he's off balance cos lineham is handing him off in his own face. Isn't even looking at him at 1st point of contact.
Watch it at full speed instead of super slow mo or pausing and it's ludicrous to suggest it's intended imo.

It's a serious incident which could easily have done irreparable damage to an incredibly delicate (not to mention - crucial) part of the anatomy. Intent shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Whether he meant to attack Lineham's eyes or not - the end result was precisely the same.