Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I think the decision is crap. I think the standard of proof is all over the place. There seems to be insufficient scepticism in the way in which the player's evidence is dealt with and that may reflect the fact that the decision maker feels he cannot cross examine the accused for fear of appearing to have made up his mind.Bit cryptic there IS.
What is your opinion on all of this? I presume you have at least glanced at the judgment from Hampton. I'm no barrister, but I reckon there are at least a couple of appealable points arising from it.
The standard of proof seems to be all over the place (even if Hampton claims it isn't) and it might well be that he has not looked closely enough at the position that even if Horwill did not intend to stamp on the head he might be guilty anyway because he was reckless in his movements. I think there are a couple of arguable points there for an appeal.
But I also think you cannot have the legislature (the IRB make the laws) as a party (i.e. appellant/prosecutor): it looks very bad because it makes the IRB look like they are taking sides.
As the intro to Law & Order says the criminal justice system is made up of blah blah blah - you need separation between law maker, prosecutor and judge/jury.
You probably need to have a prosecutor who takes his instruction from a citing commissioner and cross examines the accused.
The ball squeezing seems to have been decided on the basis that the judge who decided it would not find that a player had lied to him: apparently because the idea that a player would lie was just not on the radar as a possibility.