Horwill's STOMP and claims the Reds weren't penalised enough

[Braveheart81]

I have seen the footage. I have seen numerous stills. None of which show what Horwill's brain is doing at the time. Like I said in my original post, it's pretty clear that Horwill got him in or about the head. No doubt. I simply take exception to claims that he deliberately intended to strike the head. All the footage in the world won't prove that.

Regardless of what Horwill was thinking, it looks positively terrible.

If this had been picked up at the time by the referee/assistants and reviewed by the TMO, I have little doubt he would have been given a red card.

If the Brumbies had complained post match, I think Horwill would be facing a lengthy stint on the sidelines. I'm pretty sure this would be viewed as being in the upper end of rucking.

 

[Scoey]

Holy shit, I hadn't watched the video until now...

He's pretty lucky this came out after the citing window...

Horwill probably hasn't intended on the face, but he definitely stamps him on purpose with that left leg...

That's my view of it too Slim 293. He got Dan good. Dan would've known it was coming though and it was a calculated risk on his part. Credit to him for just getting on with it. I don't think he was aiming for the head; I don't think he was aiming at all. I love a bit of that stuff. But you are dead right - this day and age, he's a bit lucky to not get cited. Sad really.

 

[Sully]

I'He was pretty harsh in his post-game review too.

I just get very uneasy when I see long analysis of refereeing decisions. Even as a ref myself I get a bit bored by it, and would much prefer to read about stuff done by the players. But again that is just me, and I am not having a go at Scott at all.
.

The comments were about the analysis not the review. But the review tells you what Scott really thought of the performance


Again I think the piece points out the protocol the ref should have followed and does not argue the validity of the penalties.



Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[cyclopath]

I have seen the footage. I have seen numerous stills. None of which show what Horwill's brain is doing at the time. Like I said in my original post, it's pretty clear that Horwill got him in or about the head. No doubt. I simply take exception to claims that he deliberately intended to strike the head. All the footage in the world won't prove that.

Intent is not measurable, and is irrelevant. Tip tackles would rarely be "intended" to spear a player, but once they occur, they get sanctioned. Attacking a player's head accidentally or intentionally does not mitigate the potential for harm. Deliberate "rucking" in this day and age is a very risky proposition. I sure don't think Horwill is malicious, but that does look bad, and I think he's a bit lucky. Anyway, Palmer moved on, everyone else should now too, I reckon.

 

[Shiggins]

Can someone upload it. Flash videos don't work on my phone and there is no other videos

 

[Scoey]

Intent is not measurable, and is irrelevant. Tip tackles would rarely be "intended" to spear a player, but once they occur, they get sanctioned. Attacking a player's head accidentally or intentionally does not mitigate the potential for harm. Deliberate "rucking" in this day and age is a very risky proposition. I sure don't think Horwill is malicious, but that does look bad, and I think he's a bit lucky. Anyway, Palmer moved on, everyone else should now too, I reckon.

That was my point. We are all quick to say that a someone deliberately did <insert heinous action here> at times. Truth is that statement is impossible to back up and as you so eloquently put, irrelevant anyway. In my original post, I was taking exception to the use of the word 'deliberate' in their claim that James would intentionally ruck someone's head.

 

[suckerforred]

Just a comment. There was another Reds player who partook in some enthusastic rucking during the 11 - 12 minutes they were camped on the Brumbies line. Watching it live I said that he had better watch out cause he would be joining the Brumbies player on the sideline. THink it was one of the backrowers - Quirk or Shatz, don't think it was Gill but could have been.

Personally I appreciated Scott's analysis. What he was saying was what was meant to happen, given the circumstances of that particular time. It didn't. Personally I think that there were periods of time where perhaps Jackson lost control of the game. All we can hope for is that he learns from it and is better next time he is on the field. Shit happens. That is the game. It ended in a draw. Next......

 

[jay-c]

i wouldnt believe horwill intended to stamp his head> but im sure he wanted palmer to know the consequences of slowing down the reds ball
i just hope horwill sent him a tongue in cheek msg "didnt mean to catch u in the head buddy, but slow down our ball again and you'll surely feel the wrath of my boot again"

 

[jay-c]

as its been said> palmer didnt make a scene, so now that its been pointed out, neither should we
street cred for palmer for being a man thou> thats footy~

 

[Jets]

If the video played longer you will see Palmer jump up and run around to his side and try a pull down the maul again and I think he gets penalised for it. He didn't seem to worry about it but it could have turned out quite bad if contact was make directly on the face.

 

[hawktrain]

Imagine if they went through and picked out should've-been-penalties for every game...what a horrifying idea.

 

[Tomikin]

Let me preface my comment by saying that I doubt I will get this right, but I will attempt to minimise my Reds bias for this post.

I think that Brumbies fans will probably take the draw as a reasonable result as with the weight of possession and territory, a lesser team would've lost that game. The Reds on the other hand, through poor decision making, execution, whatever probably had ample opportunity to win that game. So it follows that a Brumbies fan will be less upset by that result than a Reds fan.

So it is easier for a Brumbies fan to say things like, 'sour grapes' and 'it was just a game'. At times, the outrage, whinging or whatever you like to call it may be entirely misdirected but that doesn't make it a whole lot less valid.

I could easy point to the fact that Gill was held up and be dirty they scored that try I think I'd take the draw as it was at Suncorp, but we lead for most the match, White missed a sitter in front and I think at the end Mogg should have had a crack. Now I think the Reds fans should be pissed off not more with the Ref or the Brumbies but for not taking the points when they should have.

 

[Sully]

Nah we did the right thing. Now we know there is no plan B

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

 

[Scoey]

Now I think the Reds fans should be pissed off not more with the Ref or the Brumbies but for not taking the points when they should have.

On this. I am not keen to run back through the game again but if anyone's got nothing better to do than I would be pretty keen to find out how many points would we have accumulated, had we, "taken the points when they were on offer".

I know we got a ton of penalties, but plenty of those wouldn't have been awarded as they were subsequent to a previous one and, assuming we took the points, we would've been back receiving the kick off. Also, you would need to discount the tries scored from not taking the points.

Considering how hard at times it was to get out of our own half and the fact that a lot of our penalties were partly due to the unrelenting pressure and weight of possession/territory, I'm not certain that 'taking the points' would've won us the game or even got us the draw. Just a thought......

 

[Train Without a Station]

In this case, is it the mauling players responsibility to avoid the player on the ground, or is it the player on the ground's responsibility to avoid being there? Obvious he did sort of go out of his way in this case, but more asking the question.

And yeah. Big Kev should have stomped him harder I reckon. Fuck him.

 

[Slim 293]

Lyndon Bray has commented that if the incident had've been picked up by the referees at the game Horwill would've received a yellow or red card......

''The reality is we didn't see it and we'll review that and ask our guys why did we miss it,'' Bray said.​

​

''It happened at the base of a maul; you're watching the maul so I can semi-understand our eyeline is up … clearly on the field that's a penalty offence and [the referees] have to decide what action they take.''​

​

And due to the silliness of the SANZAR citing process Horwill has been lucky to escape an off field yellow card, which Alexander received for stamping on Benn Robinson's leg........

 

[qwerty51]

What's wrong with the process? I think the victim has to make a complaint to get the citing commissioner to look at an incident. I'm guessing Palmer didn't.

 

[Paradox]

I suspect Palmer was distracted by a pie in the grandstand. A meat pie that is.

 

[Slim 293]

What's wrong with the process? I think the victim has to make a complaint to get the citing commissioner to look at an incident. I'm guessing Palmer didn't.

Palmer probably didn't make a complaint, but the victim doesn't necessarily need to make a complaint to get the citing commissioner to look at it, but they obviously need to be aware of it within the timeframe.......

 

[Richo]

Or the fact that it was the Wallabies captain.

But most likely, Kev just got lucky.