James Horwill cited for stamping

[BDA]

too many bloody lawyers on this thread!

ha no such thing as too many lawyers.. only too few clients

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Who appointed Hampton, the IRB or the ARU? If the former then they shouldn't be appealing against the judgement, if the latter then it could be argued they should BUT if they can't get the case heard before the second test,which for the life of me I do not understand, then they should not be doing it at all. If Horwill is banned after the Aussies win, which I think they will, then the Lions will question the result and the present whinge and counter whinge will look like a storm in a tea cup. Whatever happens this cannot end well.

I have told you once: the IRB appointed him

 

[Scotty]

[quote="Forcefield, post: 505927, member: 6877.

Personally, I would go with the idea that, if in doubt, look at at the damage done, which was next to nil. On the upside, if Horwill does get suspended, it would be a great opportunity for a "Justice for Bakkies" style protest.

Ahh so anyone can stamp on you as long as there's no damage, AWJ had stitches around the eye a centemiter the other way and we might be looking at criminal damages.[/quote]

Farrell ripped Lucas' ear half off in the reds game. No citing no whinging.

Difference was that Farrell could see exactly where he was stepping, whereas Horwill couldn't.

Should we have seen criminal charges brought against Farrell? Talk about double standards.

 

[Dai bando]

Ahh so anyone can stamp on you as long as there's no damage, AWJ had stitches around the eye a centemiter the other way and we might be looking at criminal damages.

That's a complete misinterpretation of what I said.

It is only stamping if you are doing it intentionally. I am saying that if you put your foot somewhere, and we don't know if it was intentional or not, and no damage is done, then it seems fair to give benefit of the doubt because no harm is done.[/quote]
OK, so charge into a ruck not caring where you put your feet as I'm not intentionally trying to stamp on anyone, That's a bag of worms, Look common sense will tell you if its deliberate or not, an accidental stomp is just that, but a deliberate stamp to the head no matter how its disguised should be dealt with most severally.
If one takes the word of a player as you suggest that yes I stamped on him but it was not my intention, there you have another bag of worms.

 

[Mr Doug]

Given the NH guys want to get at "Big Kev", my suggestion is that we petition the Queensland Attorney General to withhold the passport of that Welsh prop (a.k.a. prize grub), Craig Mitchell.
Sorry Craig, mate, welcome to the Queensland Dept. of Correction, 'cause that will be your address for the next two years!

 

[Sully]

Who appointed Hampton, the IRB or the ARU? If the former then they shouldn't be appealing against the judgement, if the latter then it could be argued they should BUT if they can't get the case heard before the second test,which for the life of me I do not understand, then they should not be doing it at all. If Horwill is banned after the Aussies win, which I think they will, then the Lions will question the result and the present whinge and counter whinge will look like a storm in a tea cup. Whatever happens this cannot end well.

The IRB appointed him

 

[Scotty]

Given the NH guys want to get at "Big Kev", my suggestion is that we petition the Queensland Attorney General to withhold the passport of that Welsh prop (a.k.a. prize grub), Craig Mitchell.
Sorry Craig, mate, welcome to the Queensland Dept. of Correction, 'cause that will be your address for the next two years!

That is an even bigger joke. Unprovoked attack that could have led to serious long term injury or worse and he just gets a fine (plus a few days in the watch house). The bloke he hit got knocked unconscious, had stitches and still has blurred vision!

 

[Baldric]

Was Horwill on the grassy knoll??

 

[the plastic paddy]

The IRB appointed him

I don't understand it myself but the Lions lads seem to think this is just an internal review of the decision and was sanctioned by the IRB after the Rougerie incident on McCaw in the RWC final. Whatever it is not being handled very well as it seems to be producing an awful lot of heat.

 

[Wales Fan]

Given the NH guys want to get at "Big Kev", my suggestion is that we petition the Queensland Attorney General to withhold the passport of that Welsh prop (a.k.a. prize grub), Craig Mitchell.
Sorry Craig, mate, welcome to the Queensland Dept. of Correction, 'cause that will be your address for the next two years!

Please keep him out there, that's fine.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2

 

[Forcefield]

OK, so charge into a ruck not caring where you put your feet as I'm not intentionally trying to stamp on anyone, That's a bag of worms, Look common sense will tell you if its deliberate or not, an accidental stomp is just that, but a deliberate stamp to the head no matter how its disguised should be dealt with most severally.
If one takes the word of a player as you suggest that yes I stamped on him but it was not my intention, there you have another bag of worms.

No it isn't. It is against the rules to dangerously charge into a ruck. There is no accidentally at all in your situation. You charge in carelessly and you are guilty. If that includes stamping, then you are guilty of both.

So does common sense tell you whether Horwill did it or not? Because it seems like it is pretty controversial.

You don't just take the word of the player. You look at the evidence. e.g. Horwill looked to strike down pretty hard in the players direction with his foot, Horwill wasn't looking where his foot was going, etc, etc. Seems like a 50/50 to me.

 

[Dai bando]

OK I can understand that an Aussie would say it was 50/50, the way I interpreted your post was that if you stamp on someone and there's no damage c'est la vie.

 

[the plastic paddy]

According to the legal expert on MF.com Horwill does not have any right of appeal if he is found guilty by this new inquiry. Anyone here know any different?

 

[Forcefield]

OK I can understand that an Aussie would say it was 50/50, the way I interpreted your post was that if you stamp on someone and there's no damage c'est la vie.

Ok. Cool.

Like you are saying, if you break the laws of the game, it should be the potential damage done rather than the actual damage done that matters. I was just talking about when it is unclear whether you broke the law or not.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

BDA, I would like to point out respectfully that the main point I am making that everyone needs to calm down and realise whatever the criminal justice system says or does is not the issue, it is a rugby judicary, that is played under the laws of rugby, not criminal laws, and the laws state that IRB have (rightly or wrongly) the power to appeal decisions made by said judicary. Everyone needs to remember the head honcho of IRB is an Australian so the ridiculous claims BIL management is reponsible for the appeal is laughable!!!

too many bloody lawyers on this thread!

Those who can, do.

Those who can't, teach.

Those who can't teach, teach law.

Those who can't teach law, administer rugby.

Little wonder that lawyers, used car salesmen and politicians top the bottom of the least respected, least trusted occupations list perennially.

Forget the pedantic points of law argument that just serves to keep a certain section of society in employment, skiing holidays, luxury cars, holiday homes, corporate boxes at the footy. In the Darwinian scale of survival of the fittest, in the best interests of the gene pool, most of the dwellers of this sector would have been by passed.

At some point how about some basic common sense?

Horwill was cited.

He faced his appointed adjudicator. This person heard all the evidence and decided it was OK. Judgement was passed.

He got off. He was either lucky or unjustly cited. Doesn't matter. He was tried.

If he does it again they will throw the book at him.

This will not be the first crook decision from a judiciary, and will not be the last. Common Sense and the spirit of Bill says "Lets play some footy".

If we want to look at justice in Rugby, how about the kid from Coogee Seahorses Under 16's last year that was banned from playing rugby by an administrator until he was able to appear before the Judiciary. As far as I know the kid, his coach, his parents have not been given a chance to appear before a judiciary. The incident was almost a year ago.

The kid is still technically banned from playing rugby. Sydney Juniors - this is an absolute disgrace. You should be ashamed.
Read about it all here: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/schoolboy-rugby-violence.11363/

 

[the plastic paddy]

I knew there would be a massive row at some point with Gatland in charge. He wants the NZ job and will stop at nothing to get it, blaming anybody and everybody who gets in his way. And that is the reason why there will be no application of common sense. I suspect the atmosphere next week will be increasingly poisonous especially if there is still a series for which to play.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Crikey the plastic paddy. A poisonous atmosphere. You are on to something there.

I reckon that oOur Wobs have been training for such a situation for quite some time. After all didn't our own Quade Cooper spill the beans, Julian Assange like, on that techniques being employed by Dingo Deans to survive in a poisonous atmosphere when he went on twitter and the Fox Sports Rughy HQ to whistle blow on the Toxic environment in the Wallabies CAmp.

Is QC (Quade Cooper) is now being punished for blowing the cover on Dingo's secret plans and preparations for the B&I Lions tour downunder via QuadeLeaks?

 

[Dai bando]

Ok. Cool.

Like you are saying, if you break the laws of the game, it should be the potential damage done rather than the actual damage done that matters. I was just talking about when it is unclear whether you broke the law or not.

yeah If I should come after you with a shotgun fire twice at you, but miss, the intent was there to do you harm, so I should get the same punishment as if I had hit you.
The problem is interpretation SH & NH ref know the same rules but, rugby is played differently in both hemispheres, You play a far looser game and the emphasise is on quick ball, NH play a far tighter game and the breakdown like the scrum is more of a contest.
Its consistency we look for, many refs are not, SH &NH about even, we hear play the ref, fine ,but is he consistent, sorry if I've rambled on, I'll go now.

 

[Dan54]

HJ, why would they throw the book at him if he does the same again, in your argument he did nothing so he got clean slate, and it should never be brought up again (and hasn't he been had up already this year for same thing). I do not like the whole IRB appeal, but it is in the rules/laws, has been in book apparently since last june, and noone cared until it came in to play with an Aus player. It has now got to the stage in here where it is meant to be BIL/Gatlands fault, it is because POC got invalided out of tour, etc, it couldn't happen in criminal court(some of the ridiculous comments made in here so far). Can you perhaps see why I think it time for everyone to calm down a bit, boy and people talk about whinging poms!!!

 

[Scotty]

HJ, why would they throw the book at him if he does the same again, in your argument he did nothing so he got clean slate, and it should never be brought up again (and hasn't he been had up already this year for same thing). I do not like the whole IRB appeal, but it is in the rules/laws, has been in book apparently since last june, and noone cared until it came in to play with an Aus player. It has now got to the stage in here where it is meant to be BIL/Gatlands fault, it is because POC got invalided out of tour, etc, it couldn't happen in criminal court(some of the ridiculous comments made in here so far). Can you perhaps see why I think it time for everyone to calm down a bit, boy and people talk about whinging poms!!!

Isn't the whole timing thing the issue though? These powers have been around for a year and so far we've only seem them intervene on a length of punishment. This is the first time we have seen an appeal of their own decision. You can't tell me that there haven't been other issues in those 12 months that warranted the same treatment?

I imagine the British press are completely ignoring the Farrell stomp in all of this.