James Horwill cited for stamping

[Mr Doug]

ABC radio news @ midnight: JH free to play on Saturday, but decision from Mew still a few hours away!! Presumably, that refers to any penalty (fine, and/or ban)?! Or maybe ABC just got it wrong (again)!

I'm glad I added this rider last night! Young lady reading the news either misread it or was handed copy with incorrect info.
Given that it's Canada Day holiday, Graeme Mews is probably enjoying the celebrations, prior to giving his verdict in 3 hours time!

 

[Ignoto]

Here's something on the Adam Thompson case that may shed some light on the IRB's stance here.

This IRB Disciplinary regulation is intended to protect all players and the Game through the strict application of a sanctioning regime that acts as a strong deterrent against acts of foul play.

So, I'm curious, was the tackle that Tana etc did to break Brian's collarbone protecting the players interest, or the image the IRB want the game to be?

If they IRB were truly concerned about their image, it's an odd time for them to be ensuring it's squeaky clean. Especially when they missed the fact Ben Lucas had to have an ear re-attached.

 

[Brisbok]

So, I'm curious, was the tackle that Tana etc did to break Brian's collarbone protecting the players interest, or the image the IRB want the game to be?

Comparing the reaction of the IRB to two incidents that occured 8 years apart is completely relevant.

 

[Mr Doug]

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?[/quote






Funny you should say that Boomer, because that thought crossed my mind yesterday!
Reminds me of our son's first ever rugby match (u15s Somerset College against TSS). SC half back scored a converted try from the kick-off. Young Mr Doug (#5) scored another converted try from the next kick-off (after side-stepping opposing 13, 14, and 15). TSS coach took the team off the field, lectured them about commitment, and said he would take them off permanently if they didn't lift their game! Isn't Rugby a great game full of great memories?

 

[TheHam]

Does a sporting tribunal have to act like a court of law?

I'd have thought that it did not. It's not created by statute and it's not governed by legal precedent or by the same rules of evidence and so on. The lawyer-ification of such processes (ie Horwill having a QC (Quade Cooper) present) seems to be an offshoot of the stakes involved rather than something native to the institution. Appointing a QC (Quade Cooper) to arbitrate is more about professionalism and independence than anything else. All of which is to say that appealing to ideas like double jeopardy might be nice in theory but not applicable in reality.

Trying to have it both ways. Putting a QC (Quade Cooper) in to arbitrate and somehow not expecting it to act like a court of law?

There's nothing special about a sports tribunal. It's all subject to the law. Lawyers will get involved on all sides when the stakes are high and you can't stop that. It's pointless to pretend otherwise.

 

[Braveheart81]

Comparing the reaction of the IRB to two incidents that occured 8 years apart is completely relevant.

Also, this policy where the IRB can review judiciary decisions has only been in place since June last year to my knowledge.

Whilst both this and the Thomson issue were unprecendented at the time, they could easily become far more normal in hindsight once this process has been in place for longer. We will have to wait and see on that.

 

[gold heart]

My heart says he will get off once they look at the "nine different angles" - crap i hope there are another 8 angles otherwise my head says he is gone it just worries me that no one outside of the commission has seen the other tv angles.....

 

[Richo]

Trying to have it both ways. Putting a QC (Quade Cooper) in to arbitrate and somehow not expecting it to act like a court of law?

There's nothing special about a sports tribunal. It's all subject to the law. Lawyers will get involved on all sides when the stakes are high and you can't stop that. It's pointless to pretend otherwise.

I don't think you've understood my post. Obviously the tribunal is "subject to the law".

It was a question about the tribunal itself and whether it actually has the institutional rules and apparatus of a court. I suspect that it does not. Probably one of the reasons it becomes a lottery. Another is that things are likely to get messy fast if players are lawyered up and there is extensive argumentation in a system without robust structures.

 

[gold heart]

decision now delayed to this afternoon..... i am praying these delays are caused by the evidence that we have not seen .... and the IRB are saying to themselves ffs we are a bunch of muppets

 

[Bowside]

The law of common sense would suggest that this is a terrible idea regardless of what happens.

I think if the ARU made the threat the ban would be suspended. And I expect if the ARU took on the IRB, the Kiwis and Saffas might very well back us up. A huge gamble no doubt, but you can't let the status quo stand or else there will forever be a question mark over the validity of future results.

I'd assume if Kev does cop a ban today, the best course of action would probably be an emergency appeal to some higher court.

The ARU shouldn't have a hard time finding lawyers at the last minute. All they would need is a few box tickets for the 3rd test.

 

[tragic]

Not sure of the source....

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Does a sporting tribunal have to act like a court of law?

I'd have thought that it did not. It's not created by statute and it's not governed by legal precedent or by the same rules of evidence and so on. The lawyer-ification of such processes (ie Horwill having a QC (Quade Cooper) present) seems to be an offshoot of the stakes involved rather than something native to the institution. Appointing a QC (Quade Cooper) to arbitrate is more about professionalism and independence than anything else. All of which is to say that appealing to ideas like double jeopardy might be nice in theory but not applicable in reality.

Technically not necessarily.
Practically if you can affect a person in a serious way you have to give them notice of the charge and a chance to be heard.
Its just a short march from there to a full blown court hearing.
The beauty of a court hearing is that everyone knows where they stand and what the rules are - the less significant the range of potential outcomes the less important that knowledge may be.

 

[Spieber]

Not sure of the source..

Sounds ominous

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Not sure of the source..

If those tweets are right then the ARU may have snookered the IRB - mind you any allegation of bias ordinarily needs to be raised with the tribunal actually hearing the case.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Not sure of the source..

FOXRUGBY tweeting that there is still no decision

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Still no <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=#JustuceForHorwill&amp;src=hash">#JustuceForHorwill</a>. IRB yet to make a decision. If this saga was a book, it would be ____________</p>&mdash; FOX SPORTS Rugby (@FOXRUGBY) <a href="https://twitter.com/FOXRUGBY/statuses/351863613444734978">July 2, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Shiggins]

This is a circus!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

This is a circus!

With Lions and everything

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Ive been able to get my hands on some footage of the hearing:

 

[Dam0]

I think if the ARU made the threat the ban would be suspended. And I expect if the ARU took on the IRB, the Kiwis and Saffas might very well back us up. A huge gamble no doubt, but you can't let the status quo stand or else there will forever be a question mark over the validity of future results.

I'd assume if Kev does cop a ban today, the best course of action would probably be an emergency appeal to some higher court.

The ARU shouldn't have a hard time finding lawyers at the last minute. All they would need is a few box tickets for the 3rd test.

I don't think you would get the support you think you will. The ARU would look foolish, exactly the same way that the SARU looked like fools when they did their Justice4 armbands campaign.

Refusing to play a game unless you get the decision you want would be seen by everyone concerned as petulance. Appealing the decision is always possible, though it would have to be within the ambit of the IRB regulations. Unless you can show that the appeal hearing was in some way contrary to the IRB regulations (possible perhaps) then no court will take any notice of it.

 

[TheHam]

I don't think you've understood my post. Obviously the tribunal is "subject to the law".

It was a question about the tribunal itself and whether it actually has the institutional rules and apparatus of a court. I suspect that it does not. Probably one of the reasons it becomes a lottery.Another is that things are likely to get messy fast if players are lawyered up and there is extensive argumentation in a system without robust structures.

Which court are you comparing? Magistrates' Court? Family Court? Kangaroo? Of course an IRB tribunal doesn't have those institutional rules. It has its own.

Lawyers are in there because the parties want them.

You won't get far trying to deny this option as it will just be taken to another arena. They may as well be in on the ground floor.