• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

James Horwill cited for stamping

Status
Not open for further replies.

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
No player should have been put through what is now going on.
If the IRB had to do this they should have flown the expat Pom to Australia in the ensuing days so that Horwill did not have to lose a night's sleep.
Amateur hour.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Bullrush

Geoff Shaw (53)
If you are not just trolling then you need to check yourself in.
Farrell is one very lucky bugger. His defence could only be that it never occurred to him there was a head on top of the blokes body.
And how come no one is incensed about the difference in treatment between Horwill and the Samoan 15?
He grabbed a bloke by the balls and was let off because the IRB appointed officer could not be satisfied that he intended to squeeze them. FFS?
You can sensuously cup a blokes gonads, accidentally squeeze them and yet go free.
Horwill should have said he was going for the balls!
The difference, of course, is that Samoa are not and were not playing the pride of the home nations.
This is Breaker Morant all over again.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In the case of So'oialo, even Strauss accepted that there was maliciousness in the incident and it was probably an accident. Strauss also didn't receive an injury from the incident unlike AWJ. This is also the firdt time So'oialo has done this - unlike Horwill. I dae say if So'oialo does it again he can expect some time off.

As for Farrell, I don't see any contact on the video. I'm not saying it didn't happen ( and I am watching on an iphone screen) but the contact Horwill makes is far more obvious to me.
 

Bullrush

Geoff Shaw (53)
Now Horwill has stopped on heads on three occasions? Do you have footage?
I've never said he stomped on 3 peoples heads.

There is footage of two incidents and he received an off-field yellow for stamping a 3rd person.
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
In the case of So'oialo, even Strauss accepted that there was maliciousness in the incident and it was probably an accident. Strauss also didn't receive an injury from the incident unlike AWJ. This is also the firdt time So'oialo has done this - unlike Horwill. I dae say if So'oialo does it again he can expect some time off.

As for Farrell, I don't see any contact on the video. I'm not saying it didn't happen ( and I am watching on an iphone screen) but the contact Horwill makes is far more obvious to me.
How do you non maliciously grab someone by the balls?
The decision is far worse than horwill on any view of it.
You cannot get it into your head that prior incidents only count on penalty.
You don't understand that for most of us if not all of us the issue is the process that has been invoked.
I know the kiwis like to maintain their ties with the motherland (hence the imperial honours for one thing) but we have always been a little more inclined to challenge the poms right to control us.
It's odd that in the whole world the only bloke or bird qualified to rehear this farce was an ex pat Pom who could not be flown to Australia for the purpose.
I think we've got the drift of your sentiment - which is all it is.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Josh123

Bob McCowan (2)
Josh, if you think stamping (as Horwill has done) or even 'stepping' on someone's head is part of the game, you really don't know how to play rugby and neither does your mate.

And even if I give you Farrell's alleged one on Lucas, who was the 2nd person he's stamped on recently? This is Horwill's 3rd one. My question to you was to find someone or footage of someone who had done it 3 times with no suspension. Can't think of anyone??

Farrel is a back and probably enters less than a third of the rucks horwill does, and I've seen him play less, so the stamp per ruck/maul ratio is probably higher than Horwills!

To say I know nothing about rugby is playing the man not the ball, in any case, I know what I've seen, from kids rugby, to shoddy club rugby to internationals, guys step on angles and arms and occasionally heads.

But we are getting off topic, I'll take your point of view on board, but I still think the irb could better use their time to launch an appeal against other incidents ie Farrel who could see his 'victim' and did more damage than horwill did, but wasn't investigated like horwill was. I also hear that there was a nut kick in the SA game, and the nut grab doesn't look too good too me. On top of that, the abs butchered the frenchmens ego, which is probably the worst injury of the week ;)
 

Scoey

Tony Shaw (54)
My god! I'm glad I went to bed! ;-)

Anyone know if there is a time set for the decision or is it just when the circus master, oops sorry, the 'judge' finishes his tea and crumpets?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gel

Lindommer

Simon Poidevin (60)
Staff member
I'm of the opinion the ARU would be quite justified in seeking a court injunction against the iRB proceeding with the second hearing. If the iRB's affairs are subject to the laws of Ireland I'd be very surprised if that country allowed persons to be charged with the same offence twice without new evidence. Legal territorial squabbles aside, the ARU should hotfoot it to the nearest Federal Court registry and lodge the appropriate papers. British fish 'n' chip wrapper suppliers passing judgement on our players and squealing to their mates back in Blighty, they can get fucked.

Next time Billy Pulver's in Dublin I fully expect him to pulverise a few tables. No, not expect, DEMAND!
 

Bullrush

Geoff Shaw (53)
I'm of the opinion the ARU would be quite justified in seeking a court injunction against the iRB proceeding with the second hearing. If the iRB's affairs are subject to the laws of Ireland I'd be very surprised if that country allowed persons to be charged with the same offence twice without new evidence. Legal territorial squabbles aside, the ARU should hotfoot it to the nearest Federal Court registry and lodge the appropriate papers. British fish 'n' chip wrapper suppliers passing judgement on our players and squealing to their mates back in Blighty, they can get fucked.

Next time Billy Pulver's in Dublin I fully expect him to pulverise a few tables. No, not expect, DEMAND!

Except that Horwill isn't actually being charged again.

The IRB are appealing the decision made by the judicial officer which they are entitled to do under the Laws of the game. In some respect, it it seems to me that it is actually the judicial officer's decision that is on trial. From what I've read about the Thompson case (which followed the same process as this is), the appeal looks at the how the decision was made, what was taken into consideration and what wasn't and how the judicial officer came by his decision. Which may be why an appeal takes longer than the first hearing. The appeal officer doesn't just review the incident but also the the transcript, evidence etc from the original hearing.

From what I've read, the appeal officer wouldn't just need to find Horwill guilty, he would also need to find where the original judicial officer was wrong with his original judgement of the case.
 

Lindommer

Simon Poidevin (60)
Staff member
This second hearing ISN'T held in a properly constituted appeals body of the iRB. If they want to appeal decisions, set up an appeals panel. The Thomson case was over the length of the suspension, not the decision.

I still reckon the ARU should snooker this second hearing and get an injunction.
 

Alex

Jimmy Flynn (14)
Sorry Alex but you really should remove the allegation that Paul O'Connell gouged someone. There was never the slightest indication from anybody that such a thing occurred. Fine to comment on Quinnie and Paulies incident with Dave Kearney but to accuse a player of gouging with absolutely zero evidence and when there was not the slightest suggestion of such a thing having occurred is not acceptable on a public forum.
Not sure there was not the slightest suggestion of such a thing having had occurred.......... I was at the game and didn't see anything - but the Leinster fans certainly posted about it afterwards including some pretty damning pictures - which I did see. Have just done a quick search and can't find a link the stills that were published four years ago but from memory it occurrred when there was a bit of a scrap involving both teams - shaggy came in and paullie dragged him out by his eyesockets. I acknowledge it never made the papers, but it was all over the bulletin boards. Pretty poor that I can't post evidence, I accept, but perhaps the public forums are harder to find things on four years later. Actually surprised by this reaction, certainly my Leinster mates were aware of this (but perhaps thats because I live in Dublin)???? That wasn't meant to be the point of my post and I certainly hope it doesn't detract from the point, which is that rugby has a problem that needs to be fixed, but this is not the way of doing it.
 

Bullrush

Geoff Shaw (53)
This second hearing ISN'T held in a properly constituted appeals body of the iRB. If they want to appeal decisions, set up an appeals panel. The Thomson case was over the length of the suspension, not the decision.

I still reckon the ARU should snooker this second hearing and get an injunction.

Lindommer, have you read the Laws in regards to this?
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Fuck I wish had as well!! LOL
I wish this whole thread went to bed!!
Fark, last thing I remember was offing some numpty troll from London, and this morning someone opened a can of crazy-ass in here.
To whit:-
1. Yes, Horwill has been sanctioned for similar incidents this year - stop asking for footage - he received sanctions
2. Arguing about intent is pointless now - we certainly cannot prove it, and the real issue seems to be the process, or lack thereof being followed here.
3. Rule 10 - a few need to let it go, having made their point REPEATEDLY!
4. Any more playing of the man will get flamed.
 

Boomer

Alfred Walker (16)
If it wasn't before, we're in denial of natural justice territory.

Are there legal grounds for the team/ARU to refuse to play?
 

churchills cigar

Peter Burge (5)
This second hearing ISN'T held in a properly constituted appeals body of the iRB. If they want to appeal decisions, set up an appeals panel. The Thomson case was over the length of the suspension, not the decision.

I still reckon the ARU should snooker this second hearing and get an injunction.
IRB reg 17.22, can be an Appeal Committee or an Appeal Officer.
I don't think there is any doubt as to the legality if the details of the appeal or who is hearing the appeal.
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
I am really torn on this matter

Horwill won the lottery when he got off he deserved to be rubbed out, the only argument we should be having is the length of his suspension

Should the IRB fix their system, definitely, of course we haven't heard anything about that, we have had judiciary inconsistencies accross countries for years, it is too often a lottery run by amateurs

So we have an ad hoc review again, to fix a perceived wrong

To me, that Is the issue, the perceived lack of consistency and lack of transparency. Who decided? Will they be reviewing all decisions across the world now?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
 

biggsy

Chilla Wilson (44)
Still no verdict, but today he should fined out

Nice article upload on GNGR twitter from SA rugby.

I woundnt be surprised if there is still no answer today And it gets delayed till tomorrow or Thursdays, just to disrupted this week for the wallabies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top