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

[Slim 293]

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

A meat pie?

There's not enough meat in a meat pie for Dan Palmer.........

In retaliation he was probably dreaming up Horwill rotating on a spit with an apple stuffed in his mouth.........

 

[Paradox]

None of which show what Horwill's brain is doing at the time..

Come on Scoey, the working's of the brain are never known. I just thought he deliberately adjusted his foot placement. From memory Horwill has a bit of a history with dirty play hasn't he? I seem to recall the Reds doing a lot of work on him to get him to improve his discipline. I could be way off the mark and apologise if so. I just remember him as being a hot head.

 

[Braveheart81]

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.

I think the 24 hour window is ridiculously short.

It means that on Monday or Tuesday when news organisations start publishing articles, games have been watched multiple times and incidents like this are highlighted, it is too late for someone to be cited.

Unless there is a heinous incident players aren't going to make an official complaint. In most cases this will happen on the field immediately if there has been a horrendous incident (eye gouging, biting etc.).

It seems a bit silly when SANZAR Referees can come out and say yes, that incident was bad and we would have taken action but we missed it and now we're out of time. A proper review doesn't seem to be carried out within the time frame so why have it?

 

[Scoey]

But was it that bad? Dan obviously wasn't too fussed about it. Horwill took a pretty big risk as has been pointed out. If the Brumbies felt aggrieved by it they ha ample time to do something about it. I think the process works just fine. There is an inherent danger in over analysing or even looking for stuff to cite.

 

[Ignoto]

Or the fact that it was the Wallabies captain.

I must be mistaken, I thought only the Captain who don's the black jersey gets a blind eye for on the field indiscretions!

 

[cyclopath]

I actually think the TMO (? Leckie) who was standing about 10m away staring straight at it and who did nothing was the most puzzling thing, in a way. I mean it was pretty obvious contact with the boot to the head / head area in real time right in front of him. Foul play / potential foul play seems to be the most likely reason for an AR to want to get their head on TV. I suspect that the fact that Palmer jumped straight up and got back into it was the main reason it was overlooked.
Don't try to rationalise the citing process - it would be easier to debate gay marriage with Tony Abbott.
Anyway, no harm done, and in years past we would have all gone "Whoaaahhhh, Palmer got worked over!!" with a tear of joy in our eyes, and secretly liked that we thought our Wallaby captain, and our THP, were 'ard!!

 

[Richo]

I must be mistaken, I thought only the Captain who don's the black jersey gets a blind eye for on the field indiscretions!

Kev's isn't that powerful yet. If he levels up enough, he'll get one that covers offside, joining from the side, and hands in the ruck.

 

[BPC]

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

I would love to be able to double-like or triple-like this post.

 

[Bullrush]

But was it that bad? Dan obviously wasn't too fussed about it. Horwill took a pretty big risk as has been pointed out. If the Brumbies felt aggrieved by it they ha ample time to do something about it. I think the process works just fine. There is an inherent danger in over analysing or even looking for stuff to cite.

Whether Dan or the Brumbies felt too fussed or aggrieved by it is irrelevant. If it was bad enough, it should have been cited.

Do we wait until a serious injury actually happens to take action on foul play?

 

[TOCC]

Whether Dan or the Brumbies felt too fussed or aggrieved by it is irrelevant. If it was bad enough, it should have been cited.

Do we wait until a serious injury actually happens to take action on foul play?

Give me a break, Palmer intentionally put himself jobs dangerous position hoping to collapse the maul... Every forward knows this is the risk you run when attempting to collapse a maul.

It's a penalty offence to attempt collapsing a maul because of injury risk, the game will always have risks..

Don't make the game too politically correct, it will become boring.

 

[Slim 293]

Give me a break, Palmer intentionally put himself jobs dangerous position hoping to collapse the maul. Every forward knows this is the risk you run when attempting to collapse a maul.

It's a penalty offence to attempt collapsing a maul because of injury risk, the game will always have risks..

I don't think those risks are supposed to include having a player intentionally stomp on your head, which is why they have rules against that.........

 

[TOCC]

I don't think those risks are supposed to include having a player intentionally stomp on your head, which is why they have rules against that...

I doubt Horwill intentionally tried to step on Palmers head... I don't doubt that he intended to ruck him(which I strongly support), but whether he meant to go for his head is doubtful

 

[Scoey]

What TOCC said.

 

[Slim 293]

I doubt Horwill intentionally tried to step on Palmers head. I don't doubt that he intended to ruck him(which I strongly support), but whether he meant to go for his head is doubtful

But the IRB doesn't.........

 

[Scoey]

It's funny; I just attempted to look up the laws on this and the word ruck or rucking isn't even used. The terms stamp and trample are used but neither are defined. I didn't really know what I was doing though. What prompted me to look it up was years ago I was taught that rucking = ok; stomping = have a rest. The difference being that when rucking your foot had to be moving backward. Clearly there's nothing in the laws that says anything like this. Anyone shed any light?

10.4 (b). Stamping or trampling. A player must not stamp or trample on an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

 

[Braveheart81]

Without being certain I believe Stamping refers to having one foot on the ground and stomping on a player with your other foot.

Trampling would seem to refer to walking over a player in a manner intended to bruise/inflict injury..

I am just guessing as I am going off more normal meanings off the words in terms of how I think they would be defined.

 

[jay-c]

id suggest its vague so that when they are citing they can use their discretion> if its too defined it allows a lawyer to navigate around it

 

[Merrow]

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.

That's utter crap. I hope my kids don't meet someone who thinks like that while they're in a maul.

 

[TOCC]

But the IRB doesn't...

Doesn't what?? Doesn't condone collapsing mauls?

Your suggestions Horwill specifically targeted Palmers head is an opinion not fact, Palmer put himself in a compromising position..

Can't believe people are whinging about a forward getting rucked for trying to collapse maul...

 

[TOCC]

That's utter crap. I hope my kids don't meet someone who thinks like that while they're in a maul.

Tell your kids not to try and collapse a maul, which is a danger in itself given potential spinal injuries.