Leicester forward Martin Corry has been suspended for six weeks by a Heineken Cup disciplinary committee for “an act contrary to good sportsmanship”.
The former England captain, who retired from the international game after the 2007 World Cup, was cited following his team’s Heineken Cup defeat at the Ospreys on January 24th for “an alleged strike and an act contrary to good sportsmanship”.
At today’s hearing in Dublin, Corry was found guilty of making contact with the eye / eye area of Ospreys hooker Richard Hibbard, but it was deemed to have been unintentional.
The 35-year-old, who retires at the end of the season, was cleared of striking.
Ospreys head coach Sean Holley and his assistant at the Welsh region, Jonathan Humphreys, initially accused veteran prop Julian White of ‘eye gouging’ after the match - with Humphreys claiming his players had made similar complaints against White after the first group match between the pair last October.
But two days after the match it was Corry who was cited, leading the Ospreys to backtrack on their strong condemnation of White amid suggestions Leicester could even take legal action against them.
“We would like to make clear that the gouging incidents being pursued relate to Martin Corry and that matters relating to Julian White are purely connected with the prior encounter at Welford Road,” an Ospreys statement released on January 27th read.
“The Ospreys would like to apologise for any erroneous comments relating to the identity of the individuals concerned immediately after Saturday’s game prior to official citing.”
The punishment for purposefully targeting an opponent’s eyes could have been anything from a ban of 12 weeks to three years, but given the lack of intent on Corry’s part today’s committee deemed it to be at “low-end of the level of seriousness for that offence”.
In a statement released this evening, Leicester deferred making a decision over a possible appeal.
“We are disappointed that Martin has been found guilty of any offence, but pleased that the committee determined that there was no intention and that no injury occurred,” it read.
“As regards the possibility of an appeal, we shall wait until we have seen the written verdict and review the situation then.”
