Quite simply eye-gouging is inexcusable. There is absolutely no room for it in the game and I just hope the International Rugby Board are true to their word when they say they are determined to eradicate it from the sport.

It is not a new problem, but we have seen several high-profile cases in the last couple of years that suggest it may be reaching alarming levels:
Dylan Hartley (Northampton) - 6 months ban
Neil Best (Northampton) - 18 weeks
Seru Rabeni (Leicester) - 14 weeks
Mauro Bergamasco (Italy) - 18 weeks
Marius Tincu (Perpignan) - 18 weeks
Olivier Azam (Gloucester) - 9 weeks
Alan Quinlan (Munster) - 12 weeks
Sergio Parisse (Italy) - 8 weeks

And, although SA Rugby insist he was found guilty of making contact with the ‘eye area' and not eye-gouging:
Schalk Burger (South Africa) - 8 weeks

"These acts have no place in a game that has at its core the pillars of fair play, respect and camaraderie," the IRB said in a statement this week after the latest high-profile incident and promised action.

The mind-set behind the act is just astonishing. Why go for a player's head at all let alone try to damage his eye-sight? That is why there is no defence for it. Players talk of the aim to physically intimidate the opponent but that is no justification for such a disgusting act. Rugby is a physical game and that element is part of its attraction but there is a line that should not be crossed.

Everyone from fans to officials appears to agree that eye-gouging is the most dangerous and heinous offence you can commit on the rugby field so it is about time it was punished accordingly.

The current sanction structure appears right – a two-year ban should be a sufficient deterrent – but the definitions within the regulations create grey areas that are being exploited. As a result the punishment rarely seems to fit the crime.

The maximum ban for the offence is two years but only one player has ever been handed such a punishment - Colomiers prop Richard Nones who was convicted without the aid of video evidence for gouging Pontypridd hooker Sven Cronk during a Heineken Cup tie 10 years ago.

Only one other ban of a year or more has been handed down – to North Harbour lock Troy Flavell in 1997 – and that was reduced to three weeks on appeal.

Yesterday, SA Rugby felt compelled to issue the findings of judicial officer Alan Hudson in the wake of the Burger incident in an attempt to defend the honour of their player.

As mentioned, the report concluded that Burger was guilty of ‘contact in the left eye area’ of Lions winger Luke Fitzgerald but not actual eye gouging. That blurring of what should be clear definitive lines will infuriate the sport's governing body and confuse the vast majority who saw the shocking incident. The judicial system needs to raise its game out of this mire and call these crimes for what they are.

The IRB obviously felt obliged to act this week, fearing irreparable damage to rugby's reputation. There is no doubt the headlines this week will have damaged the sport's attempts to boost grassroots playing numbers.

Lions centre Brian O'Driscoll made a very telling point on the matter which was reported elsewhere on this site. "Kids or parents watching an interview like that, questioning whether they should have their kid play rugby or soccer, that's their decision made right there," he said.

The IRB are also pushing hard for re-inclusion in the Olmypics and such incidents will not sit well with the IOC as they consider rugby’s bid to join the Games’ programme.

The game needs to rid itself of this nasty element and without delay. That means hefty bans and rigid regulations that will protect the game and those who play it.