James Horwill cited for stamping

[fatprop]

Justice may be blind but not cheap.

How much has this debacle cost, both in real terms and intangibles.
In real terms - QC (Quade Cooper)'s don't come cheap.

In intangibles - It has now been revealed that the key issue that they were examining was not Big Kev's act but the process used by their own bloke to establish that Big Kev's was not guilty as charged/cited.

The way this has been handed by IRB is rather strange. If it was all about the procedure and process used by the original Judiciary, WTF was Big Kev fronting up again to sing for his supper.

Anyhow - the IRB PR machine has been revealed to be staffed with the same unpaid interns as the ARU.

Existing prejudices of the IRB have been reinforced.
Wobs have been distracted in their buildup.

All stuff this series and the IRB do not need.

A cynic could think that this debacle got a whole load of extra column inches in the papers and galvanised Aus interest in the game.

 

[Groucho]

A cynic could think that this debacle got a whole load of extra column inches in the papers and galvanised Aus interest in the game.

Perhaps it was cooked up solely for that purpose.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Sheee--it. I was just about to put my tinfoil hat away.

 

[p.Tah]

How bloody good is the Lions Series DVD going to be with all the subplot dramas.

 

[Tommo53]

Reading the tweets of ex English players is hilarious.

Even with two British born judges, they couldn't get the "right decision".

 

[ACT Crusader]

Funniest. Thread. Ever.

My personal take on this is that I'm surprised by the some of the outrage I've read about the actual process when it's within the scope of the IRB to do what they've done.

I don't think transparency is a problem at all unless someone from the ARU (or another union) didn't know this was an actual possibility. But given the recent change to IRB regulations, if they didn't well that points more to incompetence and bad advice at the union level not the IRB.

Anyway good luck to Horwill this weekend. Will be interesting if he cops a few boos from the Red army when he touches the ball

 

[meatsack]

Here is the actual meat of the appeal:
http://www.irb.com/mm/document/tournament/home/02/06/84/12/jameshorwill-decisiononappeal.pdf

It's a pretty quick read if your familiar with the first findings as you can skip over the quoted sections.

I'll try and pick out the more important parts:

The summary of the appeal

18. The grounds for the IRB’s appeal can be summarised as follows:
a) The JO wrongly took into account an IRB Law Ruling (Law
Ruling 1 of 2005 which relates to Law 16 – Rucking) when
4considering whether the act of the Player’s boot contacting with
Alun-Wyn Jones’ face was intentional or deliberate;
b) The JO committed an error of law in failing to apply the balance
of probabilities as the standard of proof of whether the alleged
act of Foul Play had occurred;
c) The determination of the Judicial Officer that there was no act of
Foul Play committed by the Respondent in contravention of Law
10.4(b) was erroneous in fact, on the basis that the strength of
the video evidence and the strength of the victim player’s
evidence presented to the JO provided sufficient evidence to
establish on the balance of probabilities, and notwithstanding
the explanation of the Player, either reckless or intentional
conduct on the Player’s part.

IRB expects a 6th sense at the rucks. (bolding and underlining done by me)

38. The IRB’s submission on what the JO could – and should - have concluded on the available evidence is as follows:
.....
17.1 The Player arrives as the third defender to the maul and is
bound over the back of Red #4. The transition from the maul into
a collapsed maul was rapid but we submit that the Player, or
someone in the position of the Player, ought, based on being in
that position to have been aware of Red #4 going to ground (to
the left side of the Player), even if his direct view of Red #4 is
blocked (which cannot be definitively adduced from the video

evidence).

The IRB's complaint at 18. b) is dismissed outright.

52. On the standard of proof issue, the JO was clearly aware of the applicable standard. The issue is whether he applied it.
53. I do not read the JO’s decision as evidencing a confused approach to the standard of proof. He clearly turned his mind to the facts as he found them and whether those facts would sustain a finding of Foul Play.
54. In my judgment, the JO looked at more than reasonable doubt. He made findings that, if supported by the evidence and a correct application of the Laws, were capable of sustaining his conclusion that Foul Play had not, on a balance of probabilities, been established. Accordingly I would not agree that the JO applied the wrong standard of proof.

66. points out that he recommends both parties pay their own costs, but he notes at 70. that he will hear from the Player for alternate distribution of costs.

 

[terry j]

I think both james and robbie are happy, in fact so happy they were later seen holding hands.

(let's see if I know how to paste a photo here)

ah, seemed to work

 

[Pfitzy]

The reason the other bloke is on crutches? Big Kev lost his balance and accidentally kicked him in both knees.

SWEEP THE LEG!

 

[Lindommer]

This second hearing ISN'T held in a properly constituted appeals body of the iRB. If they want to appeal decisions, set up an appeals panel. The Thomson case was over the length of the suspension, not the decision. I still reckon the ARU should snooker this second hearing and get an injunction.

IRB reg 17.22, can be an Appeal Committee or an Appeal Officer. I don't think there is any doubt as to the legality if the details of the appeal or who is hearing the appeal.

Read iRB Regulation 17.22 today while some fussy bastard sniffed his way around a few perfectly good wines I presented to him, there's no pleasing some people.....

Anyways, it'd seem I was in error lambasting the iRB about the legality of the process of trying Horwill two, three, or even ten times for the same offence. The mention of an independent appeals body with even the semblance of being at arms length seemed to be conspicuously absent in said regulation, but let's not quibble about that. I was wrong, I'll own up to it.

 

[Quick Hands]

As the IRB have now discovered, the only problem with appointing independent judicial officers is that they might actually come up with an independent decision - even when you try a second time.

 

[Lindommer]

What am I gunna do with these 20,000 "JUSTICE for JAMES" armbands delivered this arvo?

 

[Slim 293]

What am I gunna do with these 20,000 "JUSTICE for JAMES" armbands delivered this arvo?

You can save them for when JOC (James O'Connor) finally gets that intervention from his teammates.........

 

[Slim 293]

With the IRB's pride dented after their unsuccessful appeal the ARU and RUPA are set to put the boot in.........

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...-cause-of-horwill-grenade-20130702-2pa1f.html

 

[Slim 293]

For those wishing to bring it up, Paul Cully highlights the clear distinction between this case and the Adam Thomson saga:

New Zealanders might argue that Adam Thomson did not get the same protection, but there there are enough variations in the cases to be regarded as distinct. The IRB's problem with the Thomson case was that the one-week ban had actually been a breach of its own rules. Thomson's sanction for a stamp on Scotland's Alasdair Strokosch last November was reduced to one week because of his good conduct at the hearing. But the IRB's own regulations state that no ban can be reduced to beyond the entry point for the offence, which in Thomson's case - stamping - was two weeks.​

​

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/free-to-play-but-horwill-case-wont-stop-raging-on-20130702-2pa1j.html#ixzz2XthvIsY5​

​

 

[Dan54]

Actually Slim, Cully highlights the exact reason why it is the same, when he writes the words "The IRB own regulations" because they also allow for the IRB to appeal decisions!!
I don't like them doing it, but they are permitted to do it, the case has been heard, Horwill is allowed to play,there has been no more appeals or IRB making sure he gets banned, the BIL are not the ones who caused the appeal, so we can all look back at all the silly comments made in thread so far, either decide the people who made all these type statements are people who are not be taken seriously when being read on a forum, or perhaps better to forget who they are and just let whole thing go!!

 

[Alex]

Is this what you are looking for

not the clearest pic but reckon that could have been the incident......thanks. Paulie seems to have a get out of jail free card when it comes to lions tours

 

[Scotty]

Actually Slim, Cully highlights the exact reason why it is the same, when he writes the words "The IRB own regulations" because they also allow for the IRB to appeal decisions!!
I don't like them doing it, but they are permitted to do it, the case has been heard, Horwill is allowed to play,there has been no more appeals or IRB making sure he gets banned, the BIL are not the ones who caused the appeal, so we can all look back at all the silly comments made in thread so far, either decide the people who made all these type statements are people who are not be taken seriously when being read on a forum, or perhaps better to forget who they are and just let whole thing go!!

The BIL didn't cause the appeal but I would be surprised if the pressure thr British and Irish press put on the situation helped push the IRB over the edge.

 

[Quick Hands]

For those wishing to bring it up, Paul Cully highlights the clear distinction between this case and the Adam Thomson saga:

​

Correct, this was a complete misuse of the appeals process. The fact that the IRB had the legal right to make an appeal does not necessarily mean that they were justified in doing so. The appeal process is not meant to contest 50/50 decisions when you don't get the result that you like, it's meant to overturn clearly wrong decisions.

Memo to IRB: if you want predetermined results, I suggest you look for some retired North Korean or East German judges to act as judicial officers.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Correct, this was a complete misuse of the appeals process. The fact that the IRB had the legal right to make an appeal does not necessarily mean that they were justified in doing so. The appeal process is not meant to contest 50/50 decisions when you don't get the result that you like, it's meant to overturn clearly wrong decisions.

Memo to IRB: if you want predetermined results, I suggest you look for some retired North Korean or East German judges to act as judicial officers.

Got any proof of that being the IRB's motivation?