Any word on Hooper yet?

[Brumbieman]

RE possible suspension?

 

[AlexH]

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rugby-union/brumbies/no-decision-on-hooper-20120521-1z11v.html

This was posted about five minutes ago.

 

[cyclopath]

The word is he's fine. Mudskipper said so.

 

[Blue]

"But after reviewing the match, SANZAR deemed the tackle reached the red-card threshold and Hooper would need to front a hearing."

That would suggest he is goneski.

Too bad but they have to maintain some sort of consistency.​

 

[barbarian]

Especially because he was only penalised at the time. If he copped a yellow then it might be a week less.

 

[Vanuatu Chiefs]

"No decision on Hooper
Chris Dutton (Sydney Morning Herald)

May 21, 2012 - 6:42PM

The ACT Brumbies will have to wait until tomorrow morning before finding out if Michael Hooper is free to play against the Queensland Reds on Saturday night.
Hooper fronted a SANZAR judiciary hearing via video link last night after he was cited for a dangerous tackle in the Brumbies' 37-25 win over the Wellington Hurricanes last Friday night.

But there was no decision reached with the judicial officer waiting until the morning before making a final ruling.
Star flanker Hooper lifted Victor Vito's legs and the Hurricanes'
No8 overbalanced and went to the ground head first.
Referee Mark Lawrence decided a penalty was sufficient punishment.
But after reviewing the match, SANZAR deemed the tackle reached the red-card threshold and Hooper would need to front a hearing.
The Brumbies are desperate to beat the Reds at Canberra Stadium to keep their place at the top of the Australian conference."

Sleepless night ahead for Michael Hooper & the Brumbies...here's hoping.

 

[TSR]

Most of us here seem to have thought he would get some time - so hopefully this means he is going to get off.

 

[kiap]

From twitter:

Brumbies Rugby ‏@BrumbiesRugby
Michael Hooper's hearing finished tonight without a verdict. Judicial Officer will have an answer early Tuesday morning.

 

[MrTimms]

Off field yellow card, Hooper v Gill is on...

22 nd May 2012

SANZAR NEWS RELEASE

Michael Hooper Issued an Off Field Yellow Card

A SANZAR Judicial Hearing has found Michael Hooper of the Brumbies guilty of Law 10.4 (j) after he was cited following a Super Rugby match at the weekend.

Hooper has been issued an off field yellow card.

The incident occurred in the 48 th minute of the match between the Hurricanes and Brumbies when Hooper tackled Hurricanes player Victor Vito at Westpac Stadium in Wellington on Friday 18 th May.

The SANZAR Judicial Hearing was held via video conference on 21st May and heard by Nick Davidson QC (Quade Cooper).

In his finding, Mr Davidson ruled the following:

The Judicial Officer was assisted by video coverage supplemented by evidence and submissions for the player and evidence from referee Mr Lawrence. The JO concluded that Hooper made an orthodox tackle around the knees but was driven back by the ball carrier who drove forward with his right leg raised high. Hooper did not change his hold on that leg and his other arm was in contact but ineffectual. From that position the ball carrier was left without balance on his left foot. This was not so much a lifting but holding the right leg in a high position which with the momentum saw Vito fall sharply to his left, landing on his elbow then shoulder then placing the ball. He was not injured. The referee was emphatic that the penalty was sufficient and reflected a lifting and losing control rather than a tipping or driving. The JO considered the crux of the decision lay in whether Hooper lifted or tipped the ball carrier. The evidence did not establish a lift in the ordinary way but that Hooper did contribute to the tipping which partly rose from the destabilised position of the ball carrier in driving the tackler back with his right leg high. The decision of the referee is to stand in his assessment of the incident as to the facts and gravity unless considered to be wrong. His position was clearly expressed. He found a breach but for slightly different reasons than the JO.

The contribution to the tipping puts the player in breach but it was contributory only and otherwise arose from an orthodox tackle. He has an excellent disciplinary and off field record. Rule 9.2 allows a yellow off field card where the breach is low end and there are compelling mitigating features as here and there are no aggravating features. While the spate of these incidents may be seen as aggravating this is tempered by the unusual facts here.

An off field yellow card is issued.

Ends

Tapatalked from my phone

 

[Schadenfreude]

WTF? That all makes sense and is reasonable.

 

[vidiot]

Nice one.

 

[What2040]

bloody very lucky - no consistency

 

[Schadenfreude]

bloody very lucky - no consistency

Not consistently making stupid decisions... I'm happy for them to break the mould.

 

[No4918]

bloody very lucky - no consistency

Morahan got the same result for a similar tackle, arguably it looked worse.

Good decision for two reasons:
1. Two of the best young players in the country get to face off.
2. Now when the Reds win we won't have to put up with all the what-ifs from Brums fans.

 

[Sully]

So now that's out of the way. How do we beat our bogey team.


Sent using Tapatalk on a very old phone

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Well from now on I imagine there will be many more reasonable suspensions when it comes to these borderline tackles. Good news.

 

[suckerforred]

Well from now on I imagine there will be many more reasonable suspensions when it comes to these borderline tackles. Good news.

And next time that mob of pigs come by your 3rd story window can you please grab one. I am out of bacon.

 

[Blue]

If this was a Kiwi or Saffer getting off for exactly the same thing this place would have been going collectively off its nut. Just saying like.

But I am happy he is off because it was not worthy of a ban. Is it inconsistent with what we have seen? Yes.

Will we see someone else banned next week for more or less the same tackle? Probably.

 

[suckerforred]

If this was a Kiwi or Saffer getting off for exactly the same thing this place would have been going collectively off its nut. Just saying like.

But I am happy he is off because it was not worthy of a ban. Is it inconsistent with what we have seen? Yes.

Will we see someone else banned next week for more or less the same tackle? Probably.

I would disagree with you here Blue. I don't think that it would matter which team the player was from, in these exact circumstances I would have thought that this would be the right outcome. You all know how paranoid I am about lifting tackles and I feel for once the JO has got it right. In all likelyhood if it was a Kiwi or Saffa, and the team wasn't playing a Oz team this week, it wouldn't be dicussed at all. Well I would hope so.

What I find interesting is that the Ref's appear to be getting shite of the decisions being made, and Hooper and Morahan's case is showing this. It sounds like the Ref argued pretty firmly in favour of Hooper not being suspended and I would guess it was this that carried the decision. Same can be considered in Morahan's case. However in Morahan's case I would have been happy to see him get a short holiday as I think that his tackle was worse then Hoopers.

 

[andyq]

Very glad that Hooper gets to play, when he was introduced to the game in the Brumbies loss in Brisbane it changed the contest, so all good from that perspective.

BUT.

Seriously, WTF is with these "Off-Field Yellow's"!?!

What is the point? Anyone?