I asked this on the VT but it's equally valid here:

Let's say Powell wasn't trying to attack Lineham's eyes - don't you think the ref should have said, [i"Sam, I know you weren't trying to attack Tom Lineham's eyes - but I'm sending you off because [uYOU ATTACKED TOM LINEHAM'S EYES![/u".[/i

I mean, refs don't let someone off for attacking someone's jaw with the elbow because [i"it's accidental"[/i.

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.

A sending off is at the discretion of the official. I'd say that injuring a man's eyeball would qualify for that.