There is always one. Every time eye gouging comes up in rugby, someone plants a flag and announces, with absolute certainty, that instinct does not apply. Rugby players are trained, they say: controlled. Therefore anything involving the eye area must be deliberate. It sounds decisive. It is also not how human beings work.
Rugby is not a chess match played at a respectful distance. It is 30 bodies colliding, tackling, and competing for space at very close range. The body is under pressure and reacting in fractions of a second.
This is exactly the environment where the fight-or-flight response operates. The brain does not politely consult a rulebook before acting. The amygdala processes threat and triggers immediate responses. Those responses are fast, automatic, and not always precise.
There is another layer that rarely gets acknowledged. Players do not just compete physically. They also try to provoke reactions. Verbal comments, personal remarks, and targeted sledging are used to unsettle opponents and draw a response. This behaviour is part of the contest. It can increase emotional intensity and shift a player closer to that reactive threshold where instinct takes over. When that line is crossed, the response that follows is shaped not only by the physical situation, but also by the psychological pressure that has been deliberately applied.
Which leads to the uncomfortable bit: hands go where space is available. When players are entangled at a breakdown, that space can include the face. That does not automatically mean a player has made a calculated decision to target the eye. It means the situation is chaotic and the human body is reacting under pressure.
None of that removes responsibility. The laws are clear because the consequences are serious. Eye contact of that nature carries a high risk of injury, so when it is clear and proven, the sanction is heavy. Red cards and long bans exist for a reason.
But jumping straight to “it cannot be instinct, therefore it must be deliberate” skips a step. It replaces a known biological process with a preferred conclusion. That is where Science denialism quietly walks onto the pitch.
Not the loud, dramatic kind, but the everyday version. The kind where established evidence is set aside because it does not match what someone feels must be true. In this case, the belief that elite athletes operate entirely under conscious control at all times. Spoiler: they do not.
Over the past two decades of international rugby, confirmed eye gouging cases are low. Allegations appear now and then, but most do not result in sanctions because the evidence does not meet the threshold. That alone tells you something. If every instance were clearly deliberate, the numbers would look very different.
The reality is less tidy. Some incidents are deliberate. Some are reckless. Some sit in that awkward grey area where intent cannot be proven from the available footage. Which is deeply inconvenient if you prefer certainty.
Rugby is a controlled sport played in uncontrolled moments. That tension is built into it. Ignoring the role of instinct does not make the game cleaner. It just makes the analysis less accurate.
And if someone insists, with full confidence, that instinct has no place in a sport where 20-stone men are piled on top of each other fighting for a ball, you are not looking at a scientific position. You are looking at a belief that has decided it does not need evidence.
