James Horwill cited for stamping

[Zander]

The IRB appointed officer was wrong. Good on the IRB for taking steps to correct that mistake.

Wow you don't see what's wrong with that? Wow.

Think of a High Court judge making a verdict and then some high government official saying, No I want a re-trial I didn't like that verdict!

 

[the plastic paddy]

It's Britain. There will be complaint no matter what the outcome is.

I dont want to get over sensitive about it but it is Britain and Ireland. Would rather it was just Britain but not sure Aus, NZ and SA would make quite the money out of it without the Paddys, real or plastic like myself.

 

[RangersFC]

I dont want to get over sensitive about it but it is Britain and Ireland. Would rather it was just Britain but not sure Aus, NZ and SA would make quite the money out of it without the Paddys, real or plastic like myself.

Nah can't be agreeing with that. It's sport...it's got nothing to do with political etc undertones. Someone tell BOD he shouldn't be a Lion. And a prouder Irishman you probably couldn't meet.

 

[Set piece magic]

Does anyone have the IRB's real email address for us to send our complaints to? irb@irb.com sends this back


If you have sent an email to this address that requires distribution throughout the IRB, please call us on +353 1 240 9200 and we will be happy to give you the correct email address.

I think this needs distribution throughout the IRB

 

[Bullrush]

Wow you don't see what's wrong with that? Wow.

Think of a High Court judge making a verdict and then some high government official saying, No I want a re-trial I didn't like that verdict!

If someone had been caught 3 times on camera assaulting other people and the High Court let him off, I would want someone taking action to rectify that mistake.

In saying that, this is sport - it's not anywhere near as important as how we run our society so the analogy for me doesn't really compare.

I look at Horwill's case and if I was the IRB I'd be weighing up which looks worse. Looking like you don't trust your judiciary process/an appointed officer or looking like you condone repeated dangerous play like kicking someone in the head.

 

[Set piece magic]

Wow my prediction came through with the justiceforhorwill campaign and then news limited papers publishing irb email address.. taking credit for this

 

[Inside Shoulder]

If someone had been caught 3 times on camera assaulting other people and the High Court let him off, I would want someone taking action to rectify that mistake.

In saying that, this is sport - it's not anywhere near as important as how we run our society so the analogy for me doesn't really compare.

I look at Horwill's case and if I was the IRB I'd be weighing up which looks worse. Looking like you don't trust your judiciary process/an appointed officer or looking like you condone repeated dangerous play like kicking someone in the head.

Don't they have laws of evidence in NZ?

 

[Bullrush]

Don't they have laws of evidence in NZ?

Yep.....video footage is usually pretty compelling so I don't know where Hampton went wrong?!

Must be from Canterbury.....lol

 

[jollyswagman]

Does anyone know when we will hear the outcome of the review?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Don't they have laws of evidence in NZ?

What do they need that f'r?. They know each other.

They just take them out the back for a damn good whomping with a hickory switch.

If they aren't guilty at that point in time, it is deemed a preventative measure, or a retrospective measure for a previously undetected crime.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Yep...video footage is usually pretty compelling so I don't know where Hampton went wrong?!

Must be from Canterbury...lol

Well my point was that video of a bloke doing something 3 times would not generally be admissible to prove he did it a fourth time.
with some exceptions

 

[Bullrush]

Well my point was that video of a bloke doing something 3 times would not generally be admissible to prove he did it a fourth time.
with some exceptions

Oh.....I don't know about that - I'm no lawyer

Look, I'm not really too fussed if he gets off or not at this stage, I just don't have a big issue with what the IRB have done here as others do. I can see why they have done it and I don't compare it to what happens in criminal courts as we're not dealing with a criminal.

That's just my feelings on it anyway....

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Oh...I don't know about that - I'm no lawyer

Look, I'm not really too fussed if he gets off or not at this stage, I just don't have a big issuew ith what the IRB have done here as others are. I can see why they have done it and I don't compare it to what happen in criminal courts as we're not dealing with a criminal.

That's just my feelings on it anyway..

I'm just stirring the possum - avoiding things I cant avoid for much longer

 

[cyclopath]

Well my point was that video of a bloke doing something 3 times would not generally be admissible to prove he did it a fourth time.
with some exceptions

I'd love to know whether these hearings operate in any way like a courtroom, in which case points of law might / would apply, or whether they have their own set of rules / guidelines about what is, and is not, admissible. I know 'lawyering up' seems to be the norm these days in rugby judicial hearings.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'd love to know whether these hearings operate in any way like a courtroom, in which case points of law might / would apply, or whether they have their own set of rules / guidelines about what is, and is not, admissible. I know 'lawyering up' seems to be the norm these days in rugby judicial hearings.

I've done a couple at lower levels than this for players.
They're less formal than court.
The only evidentiary issue here seems to be intention/recklessness. The dividing line between those 2 or the absence of both seems to me to be really a question of impression and what the bloke says.
In true legal cases issues of impressions formed by a trial judge, provided there is some basis and they are explained as much as they can be, are not easily challenged on appeal.

 

[gel]

I'd love to know whether these hearings operate in any way like a courtroom, in which case points of law might / would apply, or whether they have their own set of rules / guidelines about what is, and is not, admissible. I know 'lawyering up' seems to be the norm these days in rugby judicial hearings.

Me too. To be honest I would hope that they do, because the western legal system has had an extended period of time in which to fuck up, review and change itself such that it has evolved towards *generally* the best direction.

Smarter people than me have thought about the ramifications of these judiciaries and, I would hope, have realised the damage that can be done by a flawed process.

I don't even want to think about judiciaries and what not contemplating ignoring "evidence", basing decisions on "feelings" and their governing institutions rejecting findings and directing their judiciaries to specific outcomes.

 

[ACR]

You know.. when I lose my balance, as I often do, I've found the best way of assuring my vertical status is to cross my legs. It really gives me the stable platform and support I require. Anyway..

The whole thing is a joke. Horwill for his "accident", the original decision, the IRB for intervening OR for not putting in a rigorous enough decision making process to begin with. Loving the articles coming out at the moment.

 

[Mr Doug]

IMO, James Horwill can either win or lose tonight, whereas the IRB can only lose.
If the appeal is successful, the IRB will appear to be saying to NZ Queen's Counsel Nigel Hampton: "You are incompetent, in that, after over four hours of deliberations, you delivered the wrong verdict".
If the appeal is unsuccessful, the IRB is saying to it's own Judicial Committee: "You are incompetent for even considering appealing a 'not guilty' verdict"

I wonder who's advising these guys?!

 

[Dan54]

After much deep thought, ok and a couple of beers with mates I ask a question. If Horwill is found guilty, are the IRB deemed idiots because their Queens consel appointed by said IRB, does that make ARU, NZRU or whoever idiots if a ref appointed by them sees an offence and doesn't red/yellow card said offence, and the he is found guilty by judiciary?? Just asking is all

 

[BDA]

What I'm interested to know is whether Horwill's Counsel will seek to argue that the IRB ought not be allowed to appeals because it offends the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness. I'd be hanging my hat on that point and try to turn the proceedings into an absolute shit fight.