Merrow
Arch Winning (36)
Doesn't mean you can deliberately stomp on someone's head. I might, just might excuse rucking someone on another part of the body, but the head should be well and truly kept out of it.
- Status
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
No-one is whinging about a forward getting rucked. Some of us just don't think a kick to the head = a ruck.
Yep - it is just an opinion that Horwill targeted Palmer's head. The opposing opinion is that he didn't.
I hope you and Scoey weren't one of the posters complaining about Mealamu's 'head-butt' on the EOYT a few years ago.
T
TOCC
Guest
Yes that is my point, but mine is an opposing opinion which I haven't tried perpetuating as a fact..
Yes is bad that Palmers head got rucked and I don't condone that, even if it didn't injure him.
But it's also absolutely deserving that any forward who attempts to collapse a maul(in the manner that Palmer did) should expect to be rucked.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
The IRB doesn't condone stamping.........
It's an automatic card, and Bray has confirmed that if the refs had seen it Horwill would've been sent off.........
It doesn't even matter if it was his head, torso or leg.......
Palmer's offense is irrelevant.........
T
TOCC
Guest
Yes I agree, I'm not sure Horwill deliberately stomped his head though, it would definitely have left a mark/blood if a 120kg lock had stomped/kicked his head.. I don't believe it was as intentional as people are suggesting.
Merrow
Arch Winning (36)
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that whether they like it or not, these guys are role models; none more so in rugby circles than the Wallaby captain. As a parent of young rugby players, and as someone who is very heavily involved in junior rugby, it's not something I want copied by, or inflicted on, any of the kids that we're responsible for.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
Nope. I wasn't one of the posters complaining about that as until you mentioned it I had never seen the incident (plus I only joined GaGR last year). I just looked it up and I'm not sure I see the correlation. Unlike this incident, a headbutt is a deliberate act and has never been a part of the game.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
Ahhhh....OK fair enough.
My point was that Mealamu claimed he was simply trying to clean-out which is obviously a legal part of the game. He still copped a two-game suspension if memory serves me correctly. I think the panel accepted his story but because he had in essence actually head-butted, regardless of whether he intended to or not, irrespective of whether Moody and the English team cared too much about the incident, and with no thought given to whether Moody had put himself in that position, he was punished.
If you think that what Horwill did was dangerous, if you think kicking someone in the head is dangerous, it deserved to go to a citing and then let the mitigating factors come into play.
If you don't think that it was dangerous then you're obviously free to have that opinion
Ignoto
Peter Sullivan (51)
To be fair, the citing commissioner didn't think this was worthy a suspension either:
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
LOL.....it has already been argued here that it is impossible to know what was in a players head and therefore determine if an action was deliberate.
Otherwise someone could easily claim the same thing about Horwill and make the case that he should have gotten 10-odd weeks as well.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
Now that's a hard point to argue!! LOL
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
Ahhhh..OK fair enough.
My point was that Mealamu claimed he was simply trying to clean-out which is obviously a legal part of the game. He still copped a two-game suspension if memory serves me correctly. I think the panel accepted his story but because he had in essence actually head-butted, regardless of whether he intended to or not, irrespective of whether Moody and the English team cared too much about the incident, and with no thought given to whether Moody had put himself in that position, he was punished.
If you think that what Horwill did was dangerous, if you think kicking someone in the head is dangerous, it deserved to go to a citing and then let the mitigating factors come into play.
If you don't think that it was dangerous then you're obviously free to have that opinion
Roger. I understand the reference now. Horwill's actions certainly had the potential to be dangerous. My originating position for this debate (I think. It was a while ago now!) was that I think the 24hr window for lodging a complaint is fine. It was suggested by someone earlier that the time frames weren't sufficient to allow a proper review. If the Brumbies wanted to, (ie if Dan had been injured etc) they had ample time to make a complaint and have him cited. I don't think going down the path of having games reviewed, looking for stuff to cite is a good idea.
Rucking someone who has tried to collapse the maul is part of the game and there's nothing wrong with it generally. This is a poor example of it though.
Merrow
Arch Winning (36)
I'm betting the video guru's will be keeping a very close eye on him from here on in. Not so much the locals, but the kiwis and SA ones will.
Absolutely the franchises are going to be aware of any incidents. I don't think many teams are going to make complaints to the citing commissioner though unless they feel incredibly aggrieved about something (like a bite or eye gouge). I think the general feeling is that teams will let these sort of things (the Horwill incident) slide without making a complaint because it might affect how other teams view them (and want to try and cite them for things in retalliation).
The time frame is certainly sufficient for teams to make complaints but I don't think it is long enough if the citing commissioner himself wants to pick up these sort of incidents. Mainstream media isn't reporting on these things and putting videos of specific incidents up in the 24 hours after each match. It is generally early in the week when they become apparent (like the Foxsports video in this thread).
I guess it all depends on whether the citing commissioner wants to have to hold more judiciary hearings and suspend more players for incidents like this. The answer to that isn't necessarily yes.
- Status