James Horwill cited for stamping
- Thread starter disco
- Start date
- Status
Set piece magic
John Solomon (38)
If Horwill is convicted by this Kangaroo court, I am all for a NH style response. We should all get on twitter and spam directly to Brett Gosper demanding his acquittal. Outrageous
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
I suspect that the heart of this matter was the issue of the 'proven (or otherwise) intentionality and proven recklessness (or otherwise)' area of Horwill's defence.
The laws that I have read on this area of offence are not structured as relative to demonstrable intent or motive or otherwise determining the offence's validity or not; that is, they read as absolutes, either there was a stomping action risking injury or there was not. Just as in, for example, a dangerous tip tackle, the offence is to be decided on purely objective facts, was the actual tackle dangerous as technically defined, or was it not.
To be able to argue 'oh, your honour, that tip tackle was just a pure mechanical accident of balance that I executed as a technically dangerous tackle without any destructive intent, therefore I am not guilty of the offence as it was accidental' is not a valid reason to then have the offence unaffirmed. There's good reason to not permit an intentionality defence as if one was permitted for injurious offences the actual affirmation of the offence by a JO would likely prove impossibily anecdotal and subjective, and the perpetrator may well lie re motive to get off the offence, and who can easily prove the substance or otherwise of motive.
The JO ruling on Horwill exonerated him on the basis of Horwill's claim that the stomping was all wholly accidental, an unfortunate co-incidence of balancing problems and non-deliberate and uncontrollable shifting of his weight, etc. That is, there was nothing deliberate of inappropriately reckless regarding the stomping event. The JO found that he could not reject Horwill's 'no intention' defence based upon the video evidence. But I don't think he's permitted to exonerate on this basis given the letter of the law and I think the IRB found the exoneration completely flawed in terms of the actual law, and the precedent that permitting intentionality-based leniencies in serious offences would set. Hence, they have taken the serious step of appealing the whole judgement and the basis for it.
I suspect that the IRB (a) are strategically concerned that if a 'intentionality and accidental only' defence is permitted to qualify serious foul play offences (that could cause major injuries) then such laws as these could in effect be significantly watered down in their application in practice as (as mentioned above), motive and intentionality are notoriously difficult to establish as valid, and (b) are very seriously trying to eliminate offences that can potentially cause major injury and the IRB knows that to permit the intentionality and motive defences makes this far more difficult in practice and will dilute the force of the applicable law, and (c), finally, as mentioned, these particular laws themselves are not written to include dilution on the grounds of intentionality, they are absolute in definition.
The laws that I have read on this area of offence are not structured as relative to demonstrable intent or motive or otherwise determining the offence's validity or not; that is, they read as absolutes, either there was a stomping action risking injury or there was not. Just as in, for example, a dangerous tip tackle, the offence is to be decided on purely objective facts, was the actual tackle dangerous as technically defined, or was it not.
To be able to argue 'oh, your honour, that tip tackle was just a pure mechanical accident of balance that I executed as a technically dangerous tackle without any destructive intent, therefore I am not guilty of the offence as it was accidental' is not a valid reason to then have the offence unaffirmed. There's good reason to not permit an intentionality defence as if one was permitted for injurious offences the actual affirmation of the offence by a JO would likely prove impossibily anecdotal and subjective, and the perpetrator may well lie re motive to get off the offence, and who can easily prove the substance or otherwise of motive.
The JO ruling on Horwill exonerated him on the basis of Horwill's claim that the stomping was all wholly accidental, an unfortunate co-incidence of balancing problems and non-deliberate and uncontrollable shifting of his weight, etc. That is, there was nothing deliberate of inappropriately reckless regarding the stomping event. The JO found that he could not reject Horwill's 'no intention' defence based upon the video evidence. But I don't think he's permitted to exonerate on this basis given the letter of the law and I think the IRB found the exoneration completely flawed in terms of the actual law, and the precedent that permitting intentionality-based leniencies in serious offences would set. Hence, they have taken the serious step of appealing the whole judgement and the basis for it.
I suspect that the IRB (a) are strategically concerned that if a 'intentionality and accidental only' defence is permitted to qualify serious foul play offences (that could cause major injuries) then such laws as these could in effect be significantly watered down in their application in practice as (as mentioned above), motive and intentionality are notoriously difficult to establish as valid, and (b) are very seriously trying to eliminate offences that can potentially cause major injury and the IRB knows that to permit the intentionality and motive defences makes this far more difficult in practice and will dilute the force of the applicable law, and (c), finally, as mentioned, these particular laws themselves are not written to include dilution on the grounds of intentionality, they are absolute in definition.
What is next?
Will we see the IRB overturn match results if a referee gets it wrong - forward pass, incorrect penalty try etc?
My tin hat tells me that this is a tit for tat response to the BIL losing one of their forwards leaders and 2nd row (if not the actual on field Captain) to injury. Tf the BIL lose POC, then Wobs lose Big Kev to even it up.
I was a firm believer that Big Kev should have been suspended.
He went before judiciary, and got off - somehow.
The story should end then and there.
He should thank his lucky stars and try not to do it again. The rest of us should similarly have moved on.
This IRB move only serves to steel the resolve of people like me to get behind Big Kev.
Will we see the IRB overturn match results if a referee gets it wrong - forward pass, incorrect penalty try etc?
My tin hat tells me that this is a tit for tat response to the BIL losing one of their forwards leaders and 2nd row (if not the actual on field Captain) to injury. Tf the BIL lose POC, then Wobs lose Big Kev to even it up.
I was a firm believer that Big Kev should have been suspended.
He went before judiciary, and got off - somehow.
The story should end then and there.
He should thank his lucky stars and try not to do it again. The rest of us should similarly have moved on.
This IRB move only serves to steel the resolve of people like me to get behind Big Kev.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I think (maybe) the use of the word stomping connotes intent.
But intent was the basis on which the ball squezer got off in seth efrika and i fail to see what intent has to do with that.
Let's face it: using a kiwi had the attraction of saving cost.
They should have a finite panel (one from each IRB country) to get some consistency if they dont like the results.
Would cost a fortune to fly a Sydney silk to london to watch the 6 nations but I know some who do it.
Come to think of it why cant it be done by video link??
Set piece magic
John Solomon (38)
Lets go back to 1989 battle of ballymore and cite the Lions players from that game. This is the worst decision by the IRB since William himself picked the ball up. Should be a royal inquiry into it
BDA
Peter Johnson (47)
People shouldn't comment on whether the decision of the judiciary to convict or acquit is wrong or right. It is akin to you saying that despite a defendant being found not guilty of assault (by a jury of their peers) you think they are guilty because of X, Y Z. The judge/jury makes the decision based on all of the evidence presented at trial, not a snapshot of the facts available to the general public.
To say "I was a firm believer that Big Kev should have been suspended" is worthless. You may as well just show the TV footage of the incident and then run an online poll to determine his fate.
To say "I was a firm believer that Big Kev should have been suspended" is worthless. You may as well just show the TV footage of the incident and then run an online poll to determine his fate.
scaraby
Ron Walden (29)
Yes but the definition of a "Stomp" is intentional whereas a "trip "is not. The "Inglish Rugby Board" has basically said that he did it intentionally by appealling, whereas the guy who actually spent the time to look at it properly and exonerate James agreed that it was not intentional and he in fact tripped. The example with tackling is completely different. Most accidents "look bad" but you don't generally intend to trip on a banana peal and fall on your A. The IRB has once again shown itself up. What next the Lions run out in gold jumpers because its their away strip??..I was lucky enough to be in Brissie last weekend and spent some many hours bantering with my new Lions friends over 1 litre beers at the "Bavarian". Those "true" supporters are not having a bar of this they just want a good fair game of rugby...to the twits around the dining table at "the club" back in the homeland have another scotch and shut up and let the games continue. Good luck lions and your brilliant supporters and CMOOOON THE WALLABIES!!!
fish59
Frank Nicholson (4)
The JO refers to IRB Law Ruling 1:2005 “...a ruling with regard Law 16 – Ruck.”
That Ruling, at Clause 4, contains this question and answer :
“...would inadvertent or unintentional contact with players in a ruck as an incident of legitimate rucking for the football (reckless and patently dangerous rucking apart) be considered legal and within the Laws of the Game? Ruling – Yes.”
You could argue the fact that it was reckless or patently dangerous I suppose but JH says that he wasn't rucking so in this case you would have to be satisfied that it was reckless or intentional. I don't believe there is any evidence that he could have known that someone's head would have appeared at his feet when he lifted his right leg. The crossing of his leg makes it look like he was targeting the head but there were a number of forces acting on him at the time - perhaps not apparent on the single video that is being shown widely. The judicial officer had access to 9 separate video angles in making his determination and seemed satisfied that JH had no visibility of his feet.
Spieber
Bob Loudon (25)
Silk or nylon
Bairdy
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Fuck me, Horwill should have been found guilty in the first instance. It was a deliberate stamp, as he pushed Alun Wyn Jones down to the bottom of the ruck with his right arm. And Kev has a record of doing this - the Dan Palmer stamp in the Reds vs Brumbies, and the off-field yellow card for stamping on Pek Cowan.
Give him his 3 week holiday to stop the incessant whinging by pundits.
MMM or Kimlin, please stand up.
Give him his 3 week holiday to stop the incessant whinging by pundits.
MMM or Kimlin, please stand up.
Bardon
Peter Fenwicke (45)
I think this has very little to do with Aus v BIL and any tinfoil hat theories and a lot more to do with the IRB pushing their own agenda. They want to get rid of stamping from the game and have now used their new powers (since June 2012) to twice appeal a case when stamping was involved.
Once for Thomson due to them feeling the length of the ban didn't reflect the seriousness with which the IRB takes stamping. 2nd for Horwill due to the fact they feel that stamping should be punished and the judiciary should take a harder line.
I'm convinced that we'll see more and more of these cases both North and South where stamping is concerned and I wouldn't be surprised if they started appealing in the case of tip tackles where they don't agree with the decision/length of the ban.
I've said a few times now I don't agree with them appealing the Horwill case and although he was very lucky to get off, it should have been left at that. It's put a bad taste on what has been a fantastic tour so far.
If the IRB want to get rid of stamping then they need to do it properly and not lord over everyone from their high horse. They should get the unions and anyone involved in citing/judiciary process together and tell them how serious they deem stamping to be. They should then agree/issue clear guidelines to be used consistently for all stamping cases. Then butt out and trust the system to do it's job.
By interfering they are indicating that they don't trust the system but are also saying they're not actually going to do something to fix it.
As to the British press, I don't curse very often so forgive me this once, they can fuck off back to taking long lense pictures of Z list celebrities and speculating about which one of them is pregnant and which other Z lister might be the father. Leave the rugby to those who actually care about it and not about the shit you try to stir to sell your rags on a daily basis.
Once for Thomson due to them feeling the length of the ban didn't reflect the seriousness with which the IRB takes stamping. 2nd for Horwill due to the fact they feel that stamping should be punished and the judiciary should take a harder line.
I'm convinced that we'll see more and more of these cases both North and South where stamping is concerned and I wouldn't be surprised if they started appealing in the case of tip tackles where they don't agree with the decision/length of the ban.
I've said a few times now I don't agree with them appealing the Horwill case and although he was very lucky to get off, it should have been left at that. It's put a bad taste on what has been a fantastic tour so far.
If the IRB want to get rid of stamping then they need to do it properly and not lord over everyone from their high horse. They should get the unions and anyone involved in citing/judiciary process together and tell them how serious they deem stamping to be. They should then agree/issue clear guidelines to be used consistently for all stamping cases. Then butt out and trust the system to do it's job.
By interfering they are indicating that they don't trust the system but are also saying they're not actually going to do something to fix it.
As to the British press, I don't curse very often so forgive me this once, they can fuck off back to taking long lense pictures of Z list celebrities and speculating about which one of them is pregnant and which other Z lister might be the father. Leave the rugby to those who actually care about it and not about the shit you try to stir to sell your rags on a daily basis.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Either - but its rayonSilk or nylon
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
This is untenable: why would they get rid of stomping but permit ball tampering to continue?
Dam0
Dave Cowper (27)
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.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Geez fellas, calm down, as I said earlier noone here was complaining when it happened to Thomson last year, I don't know if I agree with what they doing, but fuck me,I don't agree with video refs having so much power, but I not sure any of it because of pommy press bleating!!!. Really it would be exactly the same from most of this forum and aus press if it was reverse, so by all means say be a bit pissed off,but lets not go over top!!
- Status