James Horwill cited for stamping

[Shiggins]

LOL..so 'lightly' it required stitches afterwards.

raising his leg only to put Small touch up like that? Come on. If he was going to stomp him he would of done it with a lot more intention and a lot harder. Watch the video. He doesn't stomp. It's more of a step anyway. U must really hate horwill. I don't care either way. Im just watching the evidence like everyone else.

 

[kiap]

Not for you maybe but for a rugby player like myself, I'm not fooled by the 'I was regaining my balance' bullshit.

He raised that leg higher than any of his other previous steps, brought it down with more force and back across the other leg.

But you've already given yourself up by saying "I would probably be on his side" on this incident - if not for some other incident.

The outrage can't be that clear cut, then, can it? You would have been on his side. Face it mate, you're all over the shop.

Oh.and yes, there is a player under your feet or in close vicinity at pretty much every ruck - that's almost what actually makes it a ruck.

Heavily qualified now - "close vicinity" ..... "pretty much" ..... "almost". Far from the definite article and rubbish as an argument.. You're making it up as you go.

Try doing more reading before attempting more writing.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Personally I think the player on the ground should be cited for putting Horwill's foot in danger. Rugby jerseys these days are so slippery and Horwill was clearly struggling to find any grip there.

 

[Bullrush]

So essentially, any player in a ruck or maul is putting another player at risk if they lift their foot off the ground and put it back down again? If thats true, then we should ban everyone who does it, and if its not true, than your logic for horwill knowing that someone was under him lies in tatters.


As for the Farrel incident, that is just as obvious, he has a clear line of sight of the player on the ground, and more damage was done. It is in almost every way, as bad as or worse than the Horwill incident. I am not, however, too upset about the whole incident not being reported, as i would much rather watch the bloke on the field, than see him off it surrounded by lawyers.

Yes, there is a degree of risk to other players but we don't ban players for putting other players at risk. We ban then for doing something reckless or dangerous. As a player, we also understand that risk and mitigate it as much as possible by being aware of the situation when we lift our feet off the ground and then put them back down and by not being reckless about it when someone is likely to be under them.

So out of the hundreds of rucks that have happened in rugby this year involving dozens of players, how is it that Horwill is the only one to have stomped 3 players, 2 in the head?

He is either a poor player or he is reckless. The third option is that he's a grub but I think it's more likely the 2nd one.

 

[Bullrush]

But you've already given yourself up by saying "I would probably be on his side" on this incident - if not for some other incident.

The outrage can't be that clear cut, then, can it? You would have been on his side. Face it mate, you're all over the shop.


Heavily qualified now - "close vicinity" ... "pretty much" ... "almost". Far from the definite article and rubbish as an argument.. You're making it up as you go.

Try doing more reading before attempting more writing.

You should try playing more rugby before attempting more writing.

Yes - there are players at your feet at every ruck.

I'm not outraged. I just support what the IRB is doing. I don't support someone who has stomped 2 people in the head to get off scot-free.

 

[Bullrush]

raising his leg only to put Small touch up like that? Come on. If he was going to stomp him he would of done it with a lot more intention and a lot harder. Watch the video. He doesn't stomp. It's more of a step anyway. U must really hate horwill. I don't care either way. Im just watching the evidence like everyone else.

LOL...no I don't hate Horwill?!?

So it's only a stomp if Horwill had done serious damage to AWJ? Breaking his nose enough? Facial reconstruction? Lost vision in an eye? Killed him? Which one of those scenario's would have been enough to warrant the action a stomp?

It's amazing that in one video you can see someone 'jumping' on someone's head even though the video doesn't actually show any connection but the next video you only see some doing 'more of a step.'

You must really love Horwill.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I doubt the IRB are appealing because they think his stomp was a terrible act that deserves punishment. They might just be doing it because they don't want the test the commissioner used to become a precedent.

 

[USARugger]

If precedent is the issue then why the fucking hell would they be doing what they are currently doing?

If setting precedent is the issue then why are they setting precedent for every future decision that isn't unanimously agreed upon (EG: NONE OF THEM EVER) to have credence towards an appeal because the media was whinging about it (WHICH THEY WILL DO EVERY TIME AND ALREADY DO)?

The decision to appeal looks like one that was short-sighted to the nth degree.

 

[Josh123]

Horwill is not the only player to step on people throughout the rugby season. Playing rugby, i get stepped on and i step on people all the time (not on purpose though, I promise). Its something that happens when people are on the floor and other people are trying to ruck or maul over the top of them. To say stepping on someone is deliberate is just plain stupid, there's too much going on for players to pay attention to whats happening off the ball. As for reckless, it probably is a little, because players are there to play. I have no clue as to why everyone is only focusing on the Horwill case. Plenty of other incidents occur in rugby matches, there's too little time to repeatedly spend 4 hours coming to the conclusion that a player did or did not stamp on another, where there is no maliciousness and a debatable amount of carelessness. If you disagree and there is enough time, then why aren't the IRB also reviewing or re-reviewing:
1) The squirrel grip in the SA game.
2) Tuilangi's high tackle (alesana, not manu)
3) The Farrel stamp.

This seems too random for the IRB to be trying to clear up the conduct of the code, and more like a random protest to make it look like they care.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

If precedent is the issue then why the fucking hell would they be doing what they are currently doing?

Well what do you suggest? Do they just change the decision without going through a proper mediating process?

 

[USARugger]

If you disagree and there is enough time, then why aren't the IRB also reviewing or re-reviewing:
1) The squirrel grip in the SA game.
2) Tuilangi's high tackle (alesana, not manu)
3) The Farrel stamp.

This is, in a nutshell, exactly the reason why this appeal is so fucking stupid.

Well what do you suggest? Do they just change the decision without going through a proper mediating process?

There should never have been an appeal in the first place. If the IRB have an issue with the judiciary officer, his ruling, or how they came to that ruling then they should have dealt with it in-house and let the decision rest.

 

[kiap]

You should try playing more rugby before attempting more writing.

Yes - there are players at your feet at every ruck.

You don't even believe it yourself - "or in close vicinity" or "pretty much" .....

Which is it - every ruck or just some?

 

[kiap]

I doubt the IRB are appealing because they think his stomp was a terrible act that deserves punishment. They might just be doing it because they don't want the test the commissioner used to become a precedent.

If the boot doesn't fit,
you must acquit.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

There should never have been an appeal in the first place. If the IRB have an issue with the judiciary officer, his ruling, or how they came to that ruling then they should have dealt with it in-house and let the decision rest.

That's a pretty unprofessional approach for a major sporting organisation to take and it's open to power abuse. Sounds like something FIFA would do, but we're better than that

 

[USARugger]

That's a pretty unprofessional approach for a major sporting organisation to take and it's open to power abuse. Sounds like something FIFA would do, but we're better than that

Because reneging on an official judiciary decision that was laid down by an IRB-sanctioned official is super professional, right?

I'm not suggesting that they sack him. But if they have an issue with his judgement then they need to deal with that internally, not re-neg on decisions made by officials which are supposed to carry the vested authority of the IRB.

This decision jeopardizes the authority of the every IRB Judiciary Official and the legitimacy of every judgement that they would pass down henceforth. Such fucking fantastic legal precedence this is!

 

[Bullrush]

Horwill is not the only player to step on people throughout the rugby season. Playing rugby, i get stepped on and i step on people all the time (not on purpose though, I promise). Its something that happens when people are on the floor and other people are trying to ruck or maul over the top of them. To say stepping on someone is deliberate is just plain stupid, there's too much going on for players to pay attention to whats happening off the ball. As for reckless, it probably is a little, because players are there to play. I have no clue as to why everyone is only focusing on the Horwill case. Plenty of other incidents occur in rugby matches, there's too little time to repeatedly spend 4 hours coming to the conclusion that a player did or did not stamp on another, where there is no maliciousness and a debatable amount of carelessness. If you disagree and there is enough time, then why aren't the IRB also reviewing or re-reviewing:
1) The squirrel grip in the SA game.
2) Tuilangi's high tackle (alesana, not manu)
3) The Farrel stamp.

This seems too random for the IRB to be trying to clear up the conduct of the code, and more like a random protest to make it look like they care.

I never said you don't step on people. I said

So out of the hundreds of rucks that have happened in rugby this year involving dozens of players, how is it that Horwill is the only one to have stomped 3 players, 2 in the head?

How many people have you stamped or stepped on their head this year Josh? If you ever play against me, you'd better make sure not to step on my head.

To me, the fact that Horwill has done this repeatedly without any kind of ban is what makes his case different. No action was taken against him in 3 different incidents apart from an off-field yellow card. If this was his first offence, I would also be questioning why the IRB feels the need to step in. But this is the 3rd time - 2 incidents could have been very ugly with boots to the head. I understand why the IRB feels the need to look like it doesn't condone or allow repeated reckless play.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Because reneging on an official judiciary decision that was laid down by an IRB-sanctioned official is super professional, right?

The reason we have a commission to review these incidents is because the national/state magistrate grants us the power to deal with them internally, saving the courts having to deal with tons of football fights every week.

I'm not an expert but I'm guessing we need to deal with the process professionally in order to keep this privilege. So if you appoint a panel to assess an incident of foul play, then you have to go with their decision. A couple of executives can't just reverse the decision because they don't like it.

Hence why there needs to be a process for overturning a decision that involves outside mediation.

And again, I don't know if this is why they are appealing, but we will find out soon I imagine.

 

[USARugger]

There should be no process for overturning decisions made by IRB-sanctioned officials. Their judgement should be final as they are employed with the explicit intent of being unbiased officers upholding the established judiciary processes and punishments laid forth by the IRB itself.

This is nothing short of double jeopardy and insanely dangerous legal precedent. This is to establish a court which is higher than the established court itself but is not held to any of the standards of non-conflict which the lower court is.

 

[Bullrush]

You don't even believe it yourself - "or in close vicinity" or "pretty much" ...

Which is it - every ruck or just some?

I'm struggling to think of any ruck situation where someone isn't at your feet but even if there is - it doesn't matter.

As I said earlier:

So out of the hundreds of rucks that have happened in rugby this year involving dozens of players, how is it that Horwill is the only one to have stomped 3 players, 2 in the head?

 

[Bullrush]

There should be no process for overturning decisions made by IRB-sanctioned officials. Their judgement should be final as they are employed with the explicit intent of being unbiased officers upholding the established judiciary processes and punishments laid forth by the IRB itself.

This is nothing short of double jeopardy and insanely dangerous legal precedent. This is to establish a court which is higher than the established court itself but is not held to any of the standards of non-conflict which the lower court is.

So were you this outraged when they stepped in on the Adam Thompson decision?

Here's what's actually dangerous - getting kicked in the face. That's dangerous.