James Horwill cited for stamping

[Paradox]

Interesting to see if this will all fire up the Wallabies.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

17.17.4 (a) In the case where there has been a citing complaint, the function of
the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer is to determine
whether an act of Foul Play was committed by the Player. The citing
complaint shall not be upheld unless the Disciplinary Committee or
Judicial Officer is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the
Player concerned committed the act(s) of Foul Play that are subject
to the citing complaint. If the citing is upheld, the Disciplinary
Committee or Judicial Officer shall determine the sanction, if any, to
be imposed on the Player in accordance with Regulation 17.19. In
determining the appropriate sanction, the Disciplinary Committee or
Judicial Officer may take account of any action taken during the
Match in respect of the Foul Play by the referee.
(emphasis added)

http://www.irb.com/imgml/irb/irbhandbook/en/pubData/source/IRB Handbook.pdf

 

[Wales Fan]

Interesting to see if this will all fire up the Wallabies.

Hopefully it'll fire up AW Jones more after getting stamped on his face.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2

 

[the plastic paddy]

When is this case being heard? (again)

 

[Done that]

When is this case being heard? (again)

Monday night.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Monday night.

Tuesday and wednesday have been set aside for further appeals by the IRB in case they dont get the "right result" on Monday night.

 

[Dave Beat]

He got an off field yellow for stamping Pat Cowan and he stamped Dan Palmer in the Brumbies game. not cited but video similar to this one and similar injuries I think. I think he should have been found guilty but once found innocent it is a bit rich for the IRB to appeal it. I wonder whether the QC (Quade Cooper) would accept another brief from them.(the IRB)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Form.
I think it served time.
I think the process in this instance with the IRB has been extremely poor.

 

[Scoey]

Can't remember when it was but last night I saw a Lions player stamp on a Wallabies player. I'm away from home so I won't get to watch the recording for a few days but will find it and post it up when I do. I will be interested to see if he's cited. I doubt he will be.

 

[Dan54]

Not quite sure what that has to do with Horwill Scoey, let's not start turning thread into someone should of been cited as it will never end, from both sides!!

 

[Scoey]

Haha you're probably right Dan, but this thread stopped being about Horwill's incident and more to do with consistency by the IRB a while ago!

 

[TOCC]

The fact that the IRB has intervened like this sends an ominous warning, they won't want to lose face by upholding the previous decision... Big Kev is gonna be strung up by the IRB, the Wallabies need to plan for next week without him IMO.

 

[Braveheart81]

The big problem with this whole thing is that there are two narratives going concurrently.

One is the public one which has only involved one camera angle of the incident that makes Horwill look mightily guilty and firstly created the consensus that he was likely to get suspended and then outrage that he wasn't.

The second is the one from the hearing which apparently involved 9 camera angles and went for hours. It's hard to know how much of Horwill's comments have been false confidence/bravado but he has made it clear that he thought the first hearing was fair, it was an accident and the 9 camera angles helped clear him of any wrongdoing.

What we don't know is which narrative the IRB is following. Have they reviewed the transcript and video evidence of the hearing in detail and decided that from that evidence they believe the outcome to be wrong and want another hearing or have they looked at the one camera angle that makes Horwill look incredibly guilty and the stitched in AWJ's head and decided that a suspension is warranted in that situation?

Hopefully for the Wallabies sake, the IRB has made a knee-jerk reaction without really reviewing the hearing/evidence and there is a chance the same conclusion will be reached again.

I imagine the new judiciary officer will be reviewing the previous hearing in great detail. If anything I'd expect they will want to come up with the same outcome as the first hearing unless they believe strongly that the decision reached was an error. The new judiciary officer will know that the flipside of them reviewing a previous decision is that their decisions may get reviewed in the future. I doubt they will want to overrule their peer just because they feel like the IRB is baying for blood.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Braveheart81 I think there is a great deal in what you say but you cannot underestimate @TOCC's point.
The new arbiter will, even if only subliminally, know what the IRB wants.
The IRB control, by one means or another, the juicy gig constituted by these appointments - and the even juicier gig of going to RWC's every 4 yesars and pontificating.

 

[KOB1987]

when is the hearing?

 

[Forcefield]

The fact that the IRB has intervened like this sends an ominous warning, they won't want to lose face by upholding the previous decision. Big Kev is gonna be strung up by the IRB, the Wallabies need to plan for next week without him IMO.

I reckon it depends on the IRB's motivation. I reckon they either decided that, on the balance of probability, Horwill was guilty and wanted a review OR were under a lot of pressure from the home unions to review the decision. If it is the latter, I reckon there is a good chance Horwill will still play. You mention they don't want to lose face, but wouldn't it be losing face if they admit that their judiciary that made the original decision got it wrong. I'd hazard a guess that they will make the decision that yields the least complaint/hassle. That would be Horwill being reviewed and found innocent. But maybe I am being too optimistic.

 

[disco]

I think it's great. They are appealing to get the right result.

The IRB are the custodians of the game and as they did with Adam Thompson, they are intervening to protect the image of the game. It certainly is not a good look on the game to have someone stomp 3 people this year, the last one resulting in injury to the opposition with stiches to the head, not have any action taken against him.

If you want to blame someone, blame Horwill and his reckless pay.

No Adam Thompson was given a 1 week suspension & the IRB stepped in & said that was to soft & gave him two weeks. He was already found guilty unlike Horwill who was cleared.

 

[Bullrush]

No Adam Thompson was given a 1 week suspension & the IRB stepped in & said that was to soft & gave him two weeks. He was already found guilty unlike Horwill who was cleared.

Again, as the custodians of the game the IRB are protecting the image of the game and want to been seen as taking serious action against acts that could result in serious and permanent injury. In that context, it's intervention in both these cases is totally comparable.

 

[Zander]

The IRB appointed judicial officer found him not guilty already.

 

[Set piece magic]

What should the response be if he does get banned? Horwillgate? Justice4Horwill?

If I was the ARU I would just release the IRB board members mobile numbers... we can get them british media style that way

 

[Scoey]

Again, as the custodians of the game the IRB are protecting the image of the game and want to been seen as taking serious action against acts that could result in serious and permanent injury. In that context, it's intervention in both these cases is totally comparable.

In no way are they comparable. If Horwill being cleared in the first instance from something that he shouldn't have was the problem then the issue lies with the laws and the process so change them. Retrying someone found not guilty by their own system only undermines and diminishes what is an apparently already weak system.