• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Horwill's STOMP and claims the Reds weren't penalised enough

Status
Not open for further replies.

Merrow

Arch Winning (36)
Tell your kids not to try and collapse a maul, which is a danger in itself given potential spinal injuries.
Doesn't mean you can deliberately stomp on someone's head. I might, just might excuse rucking someone on another part of the body, but the head should be well and truly kept out of it.
 

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
Doesn't what?? Doesn't condone collapsing mauls?

Your suggestions Horwill specifically targeted Palmers head is an opinion not fact, Palmer put himself in a compromising position..

Can't believe people are whinging about a forward getting rucked for trying to collapse maul.

No-one is whinging about a forward getting rucked. Some of us just don't think a kick to the head = a ruck.

Yep - it is just an opinion that Horwill targeted Palmer's head. The opposing opinion is that he didn't.

I hope you and Scoey weren't one of the posters complaining about Mealamu's 'head-butt' on the EOYT a few years ago.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
No-one is whinging about a forward getting rucked. Some of us just don't think a kick to the head = a ruck.

Yep - it is just an opinion that Horwill targeted Palmer's head. The opposing opinion is that he didn't.
.

Yes that is my point, but mine is an opposing opinion which I haven't tried perpetuating as a fact..

Yes is bad that Palmers head got rucked and I don't condone that, even if it didn't injure him.

But it's also absolutely deserving that any forward who attempts to collapse a maul(in the manner that Palmer did) should expect to be rucked.
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Doesn't what?? Doesn't condone collapsing mauls?

Your suggestions Horwill specifically targeted Palmers head is an opinion not fact, Palmer put himself in a compromising position..

Can't believe people are whinging about a forward getting rucked for trying to collapse maul.

The IRB doesn't condone stamping.........

It's an automatic card, and Bray has confirmed that if the refs had seen it Horwill would've been sent off.........

It doesn't even matter if it was his head, torso or leg.......

Palmer's offense is irrelevant.........
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Doesn't mean you can deliberately stomp on someone's head. I might, just might excuse rucking someone on another part of the body, but the head should be well and truly kept out of it.

Yes I agree, I'm not sure Horwill deliberately stomped his head though, it would definitely have left a mark/blood if a 120kg lock had stomped/kicked his head.. I don't believe it was as intentional as people are suggesting.
 

Richo

John Thornett (49)
Saying it was intentional is utter supposition and, as Cyclo pointed out, beside the point. If it fits the definition of stomping, which is an act and not a state of mind, then it should have been cited. If it did and wasn't, Kev got lucky. That's it.
 

Merrow

Arch Winning (36)
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that whether they like it or not, these guys are role models; none more so in rugby circles than the Wallaby captain. As a parent of young rugby players, and as someone who is very heavily involved in junior rugby, it's not something I want copied by, or inflicted on, any of the kids that we're responsible for.
 

Scoey

Tony Shaw (54)
No-one is whinging about a forward getting rucked. Some of us just don't think a kick to the head = a ruck.

Yep - it is just an opinion that Horwill targeted Palmer's head. The opposing opinion is that he didn't.

I hope you and Scoey weren't one of the posters complaining about Mealamu's 'head-butt' on the EOYT a few years ago.

Nope. I wasn't one of the posters complaining about that as until you mentioned it I had never seen the incident (plus I only joined GaGR last year). I just looked it up and I'm not sure I see the correlation. Unlike this incident, a headbutt is a deliberate act and has never been a part of the game.
 

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
Nope. I wasn't one of the posters complaining about that as until you mentioned it I had never seen the incident (plus I only joined GaGR last year). I just looked it up and I'm not sure I see the correlation. Unlike this incident, a headbutt is a deliberate act and has never been a part of the game.

Ahhhh....OK fair enough.

My point was that Mealamu claimed he was simply trying to clean-out which is obviously a legal part of the game. He still copped a two-game suspension if memory serves me correctly. I think the panel accepted his story but because he had in essence actually head-butted, regardless of whether he intended to or not, irrespective of whether Moody and the English team cared too much about the incident, and with no thought given to whether Moody had put himself in that position, he was punished.

If you think that what Horwill did was dangerous, if you think kicking someone in the head is dangerous, it deserved to go to a citing and then let the mitigating factors come into play.

If you don't think that it was dangerous then you're obviously free to have that opinion :)
 

Ignoto

John Thornett (49)
If you think that what Horwill did was dangerous, if you think kicking someone in the head is dangerous, it deserved to go to a citing and then let the mitigating factors come into play.

To be fair, the citing commissioner didn't think this was worthy a suspension either:
 

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
Mealamu's headbutt was a disgrace, he should've got 10+ weeks, it was completely deliberate.

LOL.....it has already been argued here that it is impossible to know what was in a players head and therefore determine if an action was deliberate.

Otherwise someone could easily claim the same thing about Horwill and make the case that he should have gotten 10-odd weeks as well.
 

Scoey

Tony Shaw (54)
Ahhhh..OK fair enough.

My point was that Mealamu claimed he was simply trying to clean-out which is obviously a legal part of the game. He still copped a two-game suspension if memory serves me correctly. I think the panel accepted his story but because he had in essence actually head-butted, regardless of whether he intended to or not, irrespective of whether Moody and the English team cared too much about the incident, and with no thought given to whether Moody had put himself in that position, he was punished.

If you think that what Horwill did was dangerous, if you think kicking someone in the head is dangerous, it deserved to go to a citing and then let the mitigating factors come into play.

If you don't think that it was dangerous then you're obviously free to have that opinion :)

Roger. I understand the reference now. Horwill's actions certainly had the potential to be dangerous. My originating position for this debate (I think. It was a while ago now!) was that I think the 24hr window for lodging a complaint is fine. It was suggested by someone earlier that the time frames weren't sufficient to allow a proper review. If the Brumbies wanted to, (ie if Dan had been injured etc) they had ample time to make a complaint and have him cited. I don't think going down the path of having games reviewed, looking for stuff to cite is a good idea.

Rucking someone who has tried to collapse the maul is part of the game and there's nothing wrong with it generally. This is a poor example of it though.
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
I think the Video Guru's would have pulled the vision of the game apart in 24 hours. I know the Reds Guys are working on it nearly straight away and my guess would be it's the same for every other franchise out there.
 

Merrow

Arch Winning (36)
I think the Video Guru's would have pulled the vision of the game apart in 24 hours. I know the Reds Guys are working on it nearly straight away and my guess would be it's the same for every other franchise out there.
I'm betting the video guru's will be keeping a very close eye on him from here on in. Not so much the locals, but the kiwis and SA ones will.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
I think the Video Guru's would have pulled the vision of the game apart in 24 hours. I know the Reds Guys are working on it nearly straight away and my guess would be it's the same for every other franchise out there.

Absolutely the franchises are going to be aware of any incidents. I don't think many teams are going to make complaints to the citing commissioner though unless they feel incredibly aggrieved about something (like a bite or eye gouge). I think the general feeling is that teams will let these sort of things (the Horwill incident) slide without making a complaint because it might affect how other teams view them (and want to try and cite them for things in retalliation).

The time frame is certainly sufficient for teams to make complaints but I don't think it is long enough if the citing commissioner himself wants to pick up these sort of incidents. Mainstream media isn't reporting on these things and putting videos of specific incidents up in the 24 hours after each match. It is generally early in the week when they become apparent (like the Foxsports video in this thread).

I guess it all depends on whether the citing commissioner wants to have to hold more judiciary hearings and suspend more players for incidents like this. The answer to that isn't necessarily yes.
 

Scoey

Tony Shaw (54)
It's not like stuff like this is happening every weekend. This is more the exception than the rule. The system works fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top