Hore's brain-fart

[Hugh Jarse]

Some wise words and good philosophy from the GOAT in this article, in relationship to the incident and foul play in general.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10850851

 

[Inside Shoulder]

What self serving nonsense.
The hand speed deployed by Hore would have done nothing if it had struck the shoulder instead of the head. It wouldn't have moved Davies body an inch - its worse than an arm tackle in terms of its likely effect on the path of Davies movement.
What is more all Hore had to do was push him: someone needs to explain how reaching around someone's body to "hook him" (whatever innocent connotation that expression is meant to convey) will have the effect of getting him out of the way.
Utter crap.

 

[Moses]

How do you accidentally hit the head rather than the shoulder of someone a full 6 inches taller than you?

 

[fatprop]

Sometimes you miss, sometimes your idea is dumb, rarely have I known someone going out to maim.
I am more a fan of the 'concept' of stupidity and laziness as the reason for an action than malicious forethought

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[mark_s]

How do you accidentally hit the head rather than the shoulder of someone a full 6 inches taller than you?

There is a physics answer here where the probability of error is greater the further the striking distance is from your own height/natural position. Its a bit like your more likely to miss your target when kicking for goal from half way then from the 22 line.

 

[Scoey]

mark_s that only holds true if the intended target was the head. Where he said he was aiming (shoulders) was actually a lot closer than Davies head so if he were aiming there, the probability of missing (error) is less.

But back to the main issue. Both players were moving in the same direction, so a push in the back is always going to be the most effective way of getting Davies out of the way. Hooking him out of the way, is only going to require Hore to stop his own forward momentum and use considerable force to change the direction of Davies momentum also.

Let's not fuck about here. Hore was frustrated because Davies was deliberately getting in his road, his brain exploded (we've all been there) and he belted Davies. I don't agree that he intended to injure, maim or whatever. I doubt his thought process got that far. He did intend to swing his arm at Davies head and probably got him as clean as possible (unlucky for Hore - more unlucky for Davies) and flattened him like a battery. You can't defend or explain his actions by saying he was cleaning out, because Davies wasn't in the ruck, he wasn't even heading for the ruck at that point. If Hore's priority was to clean out the ruck he wasn't even effective because of his strike on Davies. Further, had he simply hit Davies shoulders and hooked him, Davies would've ended up on top of the ruck on the NZ side. That's the opposite of cleaning out - that's putting oppo players in the road, not out of the road. Had he just given Davies a shove he would've still been on his feet and moving at speed when he hit the ruck.

It doesn't make him a dirty player but that act was a dirty and dangerous act that deserved a far greater penalty than what it received. This whole argument to the contrary is a joke.

 

[Torn Hammy]

In this case I would like 'intent' and 'remorse' taken out of the equation and each such incident assessed for what it is and without representation. I also feel the same way about eye gouging and tip tackles.

In essence the incident was a shocker. Has the judiciary established that they will not tolerate this type of incident? No, idiots.

 

[boyo]

Trying to cleanout: my arse!
No amount of excusing his behaviour is OK. It was a cheap shot. Him saying that he was "going for the shoulders" doesn't make things better.
Hore deserved more than 5 weeks. The IRB judicial system is a bad joke.

 

[mark_s]

So everyone agrees what Hore did was dirty play, unnecessary and has no place in the game. What I don't understand is why there are expectations Hore would be banned for many months. Greyling is the clearest similar case in recent times and he only got two weeks. I think they got Hore's about right and Greylings wrong and I was expecting the AB's to use Greyling's suspension as an example of pushing for a lower penalty.

We need to be careful what we wish for here as the Wallabeis have had their own share of citings over the last two years (I think more than the ABs have had) and some would think we have got off lightly in some cases (with the obvious exception of Simmons).

 

[Dan54]

How do you accidentally hit the head rather than the shoulder of someone a full 6 inches taller than you?

Geez Moses, I have been known to miss hitting a golf ball by that amount, and thats when I standing still and looking at it.

 

[boyo]

.

We need to be careful what we wish for here as the Wallabeis have had their own share of citings over the last two years (I think more than the ABs have had) and some would think we have got off lightly in some cases (with the obvious exception of Simmons).

A cheap shot is a cheap shot, no matter the nationality of the perpetrator.

 

[Dan54]

In this case I would like 'intent' and 'remorse' taken out of the equation and each such incident assessed for what it is and without representation. I also feel the same way about eye gouging and tip tackles.

In essence the incident was a shocker. Has the judiciary established that they will not tolerate this type of incident? No, idiots.

And headbutts?? Look ,I thougt Hore should of got more, but I like the way you want intent taken out of it for some things ie tip tackles but not headbutts?? You must always take intent into consideration, Higgers got of lightly with Kneeing and headbutting, because he didn't intend to hurt McCaw (which I agree with), so obviously intent is part of sentence. Didn't Timani just get 1 week for striking with elbow, and not more because he didn't hurt or intend to hurt anyone.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Geez Moses, I have been known to miss hitting a golf ball by that amount, and thats when I standing still and looking at it.

And I'll bet you feel remorse when you do

 

[swingpass]

scoey is right. this was an action born of frustration (at 30 secs into the game !) because davies was in the way of hore. it was clumsy, but i believe intentional, not the unconscious or damage bit, but the warning. don't do it again! i believe almost everyone who has played the game has been either the giver or receiver of such warnings, i generally dont think anyone sets out to injure in theses circumstances but to intimidate, definitely. imo hore's actions (like greyling who should have got a lot more) despite the remorse, clean record etc should have earned him a longer spell on the sidelines.

 

[mr pls]

If Rob Simmons got 8 weeks for his tackle this deserves like 16

 

[Bullrush]

If Rob Simmons got 8 weeks for his tackle this deserves like 16

But if that's just what we actually saw Simmons do, imagine all the stuff we have never actually seen or heard about. It's taken 300+ 1st-class games for us to finally see what a grub Hore is, for Simmons to be caught so early just speaks volumes really!! Inside Shoulder

(How do you do the fishing icon?)

 

[Lior]

What an absolute joke.

I think Simmons getting 8 and then 5 and Hore getting 5 highlights the gross inconsistencies of the IRB Judicial system. If Hore's excuse was he was aiming for the shoulder then it's like saying Rob Simmons was aiming to produce a good hit. Should he not have had a downgraded suspension as well because he never intended to injure. He was just slightly lazy? Actually come to think of it. Andrew Hore was trying to injure him, we know this because it was completely off the ball. Simmons' tackle shows he was committed to the tackle when the player disposed of the ball. So on one hand we have a player who deliberately sought to act illegally and on the other hand we have a player who was simply careless with the tackle. If I rock up to a court room with that excuse and I've stabbed someone in the heart can I simply say "I was aiming for the shoulder!" And thus argue that I should receive a lesser sentence. The fact of the matter is Andrew Hore intentionally made off the ball contact from behind on a player who was obstructing him (something which the AB's do all the time if I may add that). Therefore he knew what he was doing was cheap and highly illegal and therefore he should accept the consequences.

I think this presents a compelling reason to reform, rebuild and renew the judiciary and refereeing processes which have been plagued by utter inconsistencies for far too long. This has been due to the sheer idiocy of past CEO's and refereeing managers who have comprehensively failed to embrace new technologies. But also have comprehensively failed to embrace accountability. If you ask me a root and branch clean out of the IRB referees panel selectors should occur with the French bloke now in charge. How referees can give yellow cards one week and reds the next and no cards is just a complete and utter joke. And these suspensions only highlight the incompetence of the judiciary and management.

 

[Dan54]

Lior, if you rock up at court and say you were trying to stab someone in shoulder,and not heart, you would probably get a lesser sentence as it then could be manslaughter, and not murder, I not disagreeing with your sentiments, just pointing out that you using wrong thing to argue point. Actually I believe the victim in this case, Bradley Davies may of had sentence reduced last year when he got done for a spear tackle without ball, which funnily enough never raised comment on this thread that I recall.
Now where's that rod Bullrush????

 

[gel]

Actually a spear tackle could produce a career ending (and possibly life altering) neck injury if it goes even slightly wrong. A king hit (which it was) could also do the same. Therefore it stands to reason that the penalties should be roughly equivalent.

It would then just come down to intent. A spear tackle is something that *could* happen by poor tackling technique (Digby's one earlier this season) or even the balance of forces just going that way (Morahan? on $BW earlier this season) - or on purpose. It's pretty hard to see how a king hit, from behind, off the ball is somehow just a part of the play that just went wrong, but I can (still) sort of understand the "get of the way you slow prick" part of it - Hore should have just pushed him out of the way.

I think the Simmons 5 weeks and Hore's 5 weeks are probably on a par given the potential consequences of the actions - I think the thing that shits me to tears is the original sentence that Simmons got relative to Greyling and Hore's actions. Totally bizarre.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

But if that's just what we actually saw Simmons do, imagine all the stuff we have never actually seen or heard about. It's taken 300+ 1st-class games for us to finally see what a grub Hore is, for Simmons to be caught so early just speaks volumes really!! Inside Shoulder

(How do you do the fishing icon?)

What you're missing is that Simmons was involved in an unauthorised means of accomplishing an authorised act.
Hore was involved in committing an unauthorised act - even on his version.