Hore's brain-fart
- Thread starter louie
- Start date
- Status
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I guess post rugby he isn't going to get a job as an usher, is he?
Richo
John Thornett (49)
The Random Number Generator strikes again! He misses the game against England, then two pre-season games and two Super Rugby games for the Highlanders.
What a farce.
Seriously, if Simmons got 8 weeks for a lifting tackle, why the fuck does Hore get 5 weeks for a king hit to the head, from behind, of a player who ends up unconscious and in hospital as a result? The IRB is a disgrace. Player safety will continue to be a lottery until they fix the judiciary system.
What a farce.
Seriously, if Simmons got 8 weeks for a lifting tackle, why the fuck does Hore get 5 weeks for a king hit to the head, from behind, of a player who ends up unconscious and in hospital as a result? The IRB is a disgrace. Player safety will continue to be a lottery until they fix the judiciary system.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
We call it a 'random' number generator, yet we pretty much all knew this would be the outcome. It's BS. The system's well broken.
brokendown
Vay Wilson (31)
thought Simmons's was reduced to 5 on appeal?
Wonder what the official response from the Lords of Darkness is going to be?
At some point in time, someone in authority in a team associated with a player who "got off lightly" at the Judicial lottery needs to stand up and become accountable for the usually "we don't condone on field violence, or foul play from any of our players" rhetoric and prove that they mean those words.
If the Team/Nation feels that the bloke got off lightly, then impose their own sanctions.
The Lords of Darkness have no problems banning players who break team curfews and grog bans that imact on no one really. No one was put in hospital over Guildford running around starkers with a belly full of grog, or when Smith turned up late to the Team Accommodation, yet Smith was disciplined by the Team, and Guildford hasn't played since his streak.
I picked 6-8 weeks/games. He got off lightly. It would be nice if the NZRT imposed their Judicial Top Up.
Yes it sets a precedent, but it also sends a very strong message to their players and the rest of the rugby world, about what is and what is not acceptable behaviour within Brand Darkness.
At some point in time, someone in authority in a team associated with a player who "got off lightly" at the Judicial lottery needs to stand up and become accountable for the usually "we don't condone on field violence, or foul play from any of our players" rhetoric and prove that they mean those words.
If the Team/Nation feels that the bloke got off lightly, then impose their own sanctions.
The Lords of Darkness have no problems banning players who break team curfews and grog bans that imact on no one really. No one was put in hospital over Guildford running around starkers with a belly full of grog, or when Smith turned up late to the Team Accommodation, yet Smith was disciplined by the Team, and Guildford hasn't played since his streak.
I picked 6-8 weeks/games. He got off lightly. It would be nice if the NZRT imposed their Judicial Top Up.
Yes it sets a precedent, but it also sends a very strong message to their players and the rest of the rugby world, about what is and what is not acceptable behaviour within Brand Darkness.
Presumably the IRB has incorrectly assumed that Hore needed to be available for the premiere of The Hobbit on Boxing Day.
Hopefully NZ appeals the penalty and it gets increased on appeal
Hopefully NZ appeals the penalty and it gets increased on appeal
Showing remorse isn't going to bring the 78 missed minutes back for the Boyo, nor reverse the Hospital visit.
I make these comments from the comfort of my keyboard, having not heard any of the evidence in any of the cases, but there just seems to be apparent inconsistencies in punishments handed out.
I make these comments from the comfort of my keyboard, having not heard any of the evidence in any of the cases, but there just seems to be apparent inconsistencies in punishments handed out.
ACR
Bob Davidson (42)
This.
He began with a starting point of eight weeks, which he reduced for mitigating factors.
Those factors included Hore's guilty plea, his daily contact with Davies, an exemplary disciplinary record and his conduct during the hearing.
Read more: http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/all-blacks-hooker-andrew-hore-apologises-for-hit-on-wales-bradley-davies-cops-five-week-ban/story-e6frf4pu-1226526241346#ixzz2DZ0AfbVw
I think it's pretty much spot on in terms of matches. Only problem is, he misses only 1 Super Rugby match, there are 3 pre-season fixtures, and the England test. I don't think this decision is random, others might be though.
thierry dusautoir
Alan Cameron (40)
What level was it graded as i would imagine a high level strike should be more than 8 weeks.......
Also he is a pro sportsman so he has pretty good co ordination and control of his body yet they want us to believe it was all just an accident puh-lease
Also he is a pro sportsman so he has pretty good co ordination and control of his body yet they want us to believe it was all just an accident puh-lease
Where the IRB sanctions really fall down is the fact that this was bracketed into something with a punishment range.
There needs to be a power similar to the NRL citing commissioner whereby a charge can be referred directly to the judiciary without a graded charge attached.
There should be grounds whereby a really serious incident can be assessed individually rather than just being slotted into low, medium or high grade of that particular charge.
If someone got in a fight on a rugby pitch and knocked someone out with a punch (whilst the victim was also throwing punches at them) I would classify that as warranting a high grade striking charge.
In my opinion an unprovoked king hit from behind is far more serious than that.
There needs to be a power similar to the NRL citing commissioner whereby a charge can be referred directly to the judiciary without a graded charge attached.
There should be grounds whereby a really serious incident can be assessed individually rather than just being slotted into low, medium or high grade of that particular charge.
If someone got in a fight on a rugby pitch and knocked someone out with a punch (whilst the victim was also throwing punches at them) I would classify that as warranting a high grade striking charge.
In my opinion an unprovoked king hit from behind is far more serious than that.
thierry dusautoir
Alan Cameron (40)
Agreed......i forget who it was but that player who attacked O''Gara on the last lions tour (i think it was brumbies player) got even more than 5 weeks and his i would say was nearly as bad
ACR
Bob Davidson (42)
Yes, but the judiciary didn't rule that it was a 'king hit' though. Describing it as an unprovoked king hit is not quite accurate and it implies something a little (stress little) worse than what it was.
The judiciary decided that he wasn't trying to strike the head, which I believe, purely out of lack of a reason, an open palm and the resemblance to an albeit reckless and stupid clean out.
He called it inherently dangerous, (obviously) and that it was a deliberate swinging of the arm delivered with significant force, causing serious injury to the victim who was unsighted.
It was a very bad one, obviously, but I think the original 8 match ban minus deductions to 5 is reasonable. Should have excluded the pre-season fixture though to make it 1 test and four super rugby fixtures.
Duncan Macrae (from NSW) banned for 7 matches for punching Ronan O'Gara 11 times, on the ground. Not quite the same. That match sticks in the memory.
thierry dusautoir
Alan Cameron (40)
Thats right....but i think if iremember correctly there was more to the story wasnt there?and the 11 punches werent all effective ones/didnt hit i think?
did o'gara play on?
If his hand was open thats only because he was going for a swinging forearm a close fist from that angle wouldnt have done anything
Wheatman
Chris McKivat (8)
I really don't like that Simmons original punishment was 14 weeks and this was 8. Essentially, IRB has now said it's really bad to tackle someone onto their back hard, but not that bad to intently attack the head (in an non-blatent way, yet obvious way)!
The Kiwis certainly have the best lawyers on tour. Wonder if they used the Chewbacca defence.
The Kiwis certainly have the best lawyers on tour. Wonder if they used the Chewbacca defence.
- Status