James Horwill cited for stamping

[Try-ranosaurus Rex]

Graeme Mew is a British citizen. Can IRB appoint judicial officer from country that benefits from decision?

#JUSTICEforHORWILL

 

[Bullrush]

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.

Can't see how the ARU can look to legally challenge the IRB based on the nationality of the Appeal Officer if the Regulations have been followed:

17.7.2 The Host Union shall, when required, appoint and have available an

Appeal Committee comprising of three members or a single Appeal

Officer to adjudicate on appeals from decisions of Disciplinary

Committees or Judicial Officers.

It would seem that the ARU would have appointed Mews, not the IRB.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Can't see how the ARU can look to legally challenge the IRB based on the nationality of the Appeal Officer if the Regulations have been followed:



It would seem that the ARU would have appointed Mews, not the IRB.

Where is you quote from?
The current IRB Handbook numbering is different.

 

[Bullrush]

Where is you quote from?
The current IRB Handbook numbering is different.

I got it here:

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/regulation17090730_8711.pdf

 

[RoffsChoice]

On the same day as that Test and Horwill's action, the following four incidents occurred in the Test between South Africa and Samoa where the citing commissioner was Peter Larter, the former England prop, and the judicial officer the experienced Judge Jeff Blackett of England. They, too were appointed by the IRB:
1. James So'oialo grabbed Adriaan Strauss by the testicles. Larter cited and Blackett said it could have been an accident and let So'oialo off.
The IRB did not appeal the decision.
2. Alesana Tuilagi launched himself at Jean de Villiers. The match officials examined the incident and issued Tuilagi a red card. It was certainly a dangerous tackle - at the neck with a stiff arm and lots on force on a player who did not have the ball. Tuilagi appeared before Blackett and was suspended for a week - a sort of 'let's pretend we are supporting the referee' suspension.
The IRB did not appeal that decision.
3. Jeremy Su'a stamped on Francois Louw's face and drew blood at the level of his nose. It was an obvious act. Larter did not cite Su'a.
The IRB did not insist that he be cited.
4. Census Johnston kicked Coenie Oosthuizen in the groin. It was an obvious act. Larter did not cite Johnston
The IRB did not insist that Johnston be cited.

source: http://www.sareferees.com/News/why-the-irb/2829938

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I got it here:

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/regulation17090730_8711.pdf

Its different to this one:
http://www.irb.com/imgml/irb/irbhandbook/en/index.html#/232/
I think this may be an Appeal Panel under Reg 18 - but I am by no means certain of that.
Edit: I think I'm wrong.

 

[Brisbok]

.....exactly the same way that the SARU looked like fools when they did their Justice4 armbands campaign.

A bit besides the point, but from memory, this campaign was initiated by the Springbok players without the knowledge of SARU or even team management. I believe this was confirmed in John Smit's autobiography.

 

[Joe Blow]

The IRB backed the ARU into a corner if it is true that they stated the findings in this second hearing were final and could not be appealed.

Pretty ugly stuff all around.

 

[Dan54]

Graeme Mew is a British citizen. Can IRB appoint judicial officer from country that benefits from decision?

#JUSTICEforHORWILL

I would think they can appoint officer from anywhere, don't forget the IRB is headed by an Aussie, should he not be allowed because he is liable to make decisions in favour of Aussie??

 

[Bowside]

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.

I think the spirit of the game starts to come in here. I absolutely agree refusing to play because you don't like the decision is petulant. But at the same time the way the IRB has acted is unheard of.

I'm pretty sure the Saffas would back us up. They're at the forefront of ref development and I'd argue their domestic refereeing association is far more professional than the IRB. When ever there is a rule change they are the first to jump on it and make an educational video.

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.

It would come under Natural Justice would it not?

Unless they have found new evidence I guess.

 

[Richo]

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.

I feel like I'm talking in circles.

Of course it's not a court of law. A court of law is part of the judicial system -- one of the branches of government. And of course they all have different rules. Numerous posters on this thread have been raising principles of law that apply to the court system -- my question was whether the IRB tribunal belongs in the same category.

I don't have a problem with lawyers being involved , I have a problem with the institution not being robust enough. In other words, it clearly doesn't have the appropriate mechanisms for dealing with appeals in an independent manner. Nor does it seem to have clear rules about evidence or intent (although maybe it does, but it's very opaque).

 

[Braveheart81]

To my knowledge, the big difference with these judiciary hearings compared to a courtroom is that there are no such thing as objections and the judiciary officer can pretty much direct the proceedings as they see fit to gather all the information they want to make their decision.

It is a far less formal process to a courtroom trial.

 

[Richo]

Which probably makes sense a fair amount of the time.

But it does mean that when the IRB does something like this re Horwill, it opens a massive can of worms. When you throw in top lawyers making the case and international media scrutiny, there is a distinct whiff of kangaroo.

 

[vidiot]

Reading the handbook, I'm still struggling to see how the appeal was heard by a judicial officer rather than an appeals committee. But my attention span of 8 seconds may be the problem.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Georgina Robinson ‏@geerob 46s
Horwill cleared to play

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Meet @ Hungry jacks for a celebration

 

[en_force_er]

Those other camera angles must be damning.

My guess is his eyes never leave the opposition halfback or something.

 

[I like to watch]

Meet @ Hungry jacks for a celebration

Or should they wait til 4am,so all the boyz can be there?

 

[Set piece magic]

Cop that IRB!

 

[daz]

Can the IRB cite themselves for incompetence?

No shortage of character witnessess for that trial.