James Horwill cited for stamping

[Inside Shoulder]

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.

I think the decision is crap. I think the standard of proof is all over the place. There seems to be insufficient scepticism in the way in which the player's evidence is dealt with and that may reflect the fact that the decision maker feels he cannot cross examine the accused for fear of appearing to have made up his mind.
But I also think you cannot have the legislature (the IRB make the laws) as a party (i.e. appellant/prosecutor): it looks very bad because it makes the IRB look like they are taking sides.
As the intro to Law & Order says the criminal justice system is made up of blah blah blah - you need separation between law maker, prosecutor and judge/jury.
You probably need to have a prosecutor who takes his instruction from a citing commissioner and cross examines the accused.
The ball squeezing seems to have been decided on the basis that the judge who decided it would not find that a player had lied to him: apparently because the idea that a player would lie was just not on the radar as a possibility.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

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!!

If Thompson is prepared to play for us I'll talk about it until the cows come home - but this is the green and gold rugby forum

 

[Zander]

Dan there is a massive difference between the Thomson and Horwill's cases. Changing a sentence is not so much a big deal, he was already found guilty and he didn't have to present his case again.

 

[BDA]

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.

Yes but the judiciary found him not guilty of stamping did they not? There is a huge difference between appealing sentence and appealing conviction. Chalk and fuckn Cheese.

 

[Dan54]

Yep I agree IS, but sure makes arguments stronger if everyone is consistently outraged, otherwise it makes it hard to have a valid agrgument!!

 

[Dan54]

Dan there is a massive difference between the Thomson and Horwill's cases. Changing a sentence is not so much a big deal, he was already found guilty and he didn't have to present his case again.

NO, it not that different, the bottom line is the IRB have the power to have cases relooked at, and we may not like it, but what I am saying is IRB, not the BIL management are getting case relooked at, so thats what I saying everyone should calm down with their ridiculous comments blaming press, BIL etc.

 

[the plastic paddy]

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.

 

[Zander]

NO, it not that different, the bottom line is the IRB have the power to have cases relooked at, and we may not like it, but what I am saying is IRB, not the BIL management are getting case relooked at, so thats what I saying everyone should calm down with their ridiculous comments blaming press, BIL etc.

I don't think it takes a genius to work out the BIL made a phone call to the IRB despite what the BILs will come out with.

 

[BDA]

NO, it not that different, the bottom line is the IRB have the power to have cases relooked at, and we may not like it, but what I am saying is IRB, not the BIL management are getting case relooked at, so that's what I saying everyone should calm down with their ridiculous comments blaming press, BIL etc.

Again I'll have to respectfully disagree with this. As I mentioned earlier, we have a criminal justice system that does not allow the crown to appeal against conviction. Why? Because it is the crown that brings the charge in the first place. It is the same in this instance. The IRB brings a charge against Horwill. They refer the matter to a competent judiciary to decide whether there is enough evidence to convict. They did that, and he was found not guilty. It is, in my view, unfair for them to appeal the conviction. Appealing a sentence is a different kettle of fish. It is not appealing the finding of fact, it is appealing the discretion of the judiciary (i.e. the discretion to award a light sentence as oppose to a heavier sentence).

EDIT:
At the very least the IRB should have to seek leave to appeal conviction and show some extenuating circumstance which warrants the granting of such leave... not merely "we didn't like the decision" . It really is embarrassing

 

[Richo]

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.

If Horwill is banned after an Aussie win, the Lions should shut the hell up, be glad that the IRB did their dirty work, and thank their stars they don't have to face Kev in the third test.

 

[Forcefield]

Given how bureaucratic the whole system is, if the appeal reverses the decision about Horwill, there will probably be some avenue to appeal that decision as well, which would probably end up with Horwill being able to play.

Let's face it, Horwill has once or twice in the past done things that push the envelope very, very close where stamping is concerned. If he's found guilty, it wouldn't exactly be unfair. If he isn't found guilty, well that wouldn't be unfair either. Has nothing to do with the British and Irish Lions.

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.

 

[Ignoto]

Yep I agree IS, but sure makes arguments stronger if everyone is consistently outraged, otherwise it makes it hard to have a valid agrgument!!

To be fair I like many Australians had NFI about the Thomson issue. I don't know why you're trying to make this point as not everyone follows the All Blacks in tests that don't affect Australia.

I'm curious, can the ARU appeal the IRBs decision to the CAS? Based on the evidence we the public have been given, this just seems like a witch hunt.

 

[the plastic paddy]

If Horwill is banned after an Aussie win, the Lions should shut the hell up, be glad that the IRB did their dirty work, and thank their stars they don't have to face Kev in the third test.

I agree, but the Lions management and fans won't shut up and that is the massive problem for the game which would have been partially negated if they could have cleared up the problem before Horwill plays in the second test. You only have to have a look at the articles in the British press to see that this has already got a lot bigger than a player being cited. Gatland is a gobshite who spends most of his time lobbing off hand grenades and believe me if Australia win tomorrow this will get an awful lot worse. If Australia lose then there will be a come back that all this was a massive distraction for the wallabies.

 

[Zander]

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.

Exactly 4 years onwards.

 

[Dan54]

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!!!

 

[Scoey]

Anyone watching the Canes vs Chiefs game would've just seen a deliberate stomp. No penalty, you can guarantee it won't be cited either. The commentators simply said, "Dickson putting on a bit of footwork there" referring to the stomp.

Why, because he hit the body. The reason Horwill is in hot water is because he hit AWJ's head. This is the only reason. Yet strangely, the law makes no mention of any part of the body. This is why the whole mess is BS. It's all emotion and no logic.

 

[Dai bando]

[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.[/quote]
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.

 

[Spieber]

Either - but its rayon

Indeed, my error. I forgot that a rayon needs to handled with greater care than a nylon, and has a lower boiling point.

 

[Forcefield]

[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]


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.

 

[brokendown]

too many bloody lawyers on this thread!