Hore's brain-fart

[Moses]

I can understand Hore getting the top end of a striking charge.

What seems random to me is that when we consider the Simmons verdict which carried an additional 'deterrent' charge, how was Simmons' action requiring of this addition and Hore's not?

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

The mantel has been unequivocally passed on.

Rise, Sir Bakkies Hore.

300 odd first class games, one citing. I think not.

5 weeks.. hardly worthy punishment for this but meh, whatever.

His personal reputation in tatters I'd say is what matters more to him. Not much that can be done about that.

Nice to see that apologies etc have been going on behind the scenes - as they should be. Makes a few articles written over the last few days look really lame and pathetic (Reason, I'm looking at you).

 

[Richo]

I think it's entirely consistent with what they have been doing. The figure out if you are quilty or not. They look at the grading and decide the penalty. Then look at his record etc.
There is no problem with this penalty.

Sent using Tapatalk

The problem with your argument is that it assumes the system makes any sense. Why was he charged with an offense with a maximum of 8 weeks? Why would a good record be taken into account when he knocks a bloke unconscious with a blow to the head from behind? Why was there no additional deterrent penalty applied?

Btw, I'm not out to get Hore on this and I'm sure he's genuinely remorseful. But that was a stupid, dangerous thing to do that did, in fact, have very serious consequences for the victim and he's essentially received a slap on the wrist. I'd feel the same way if it was an Aussie that did it.

Judiciaries are supposed to create a reliable system of deterrence against dangerous behaviour. They are supposed to be about player safety. The message from this incident is that striking the head and seriously injuring a defenseless player is not a major concern for the IRB.

 

[Bardon]

I think in the framework that's there at present the 5 weeks was a fair punishment considered it was originally 8 weeks reduced to 5. However I don't believe the framework is fair at all and there should have been a higher maximum punishment for what Hore did and hopefully at some point in the future there will be a higher maximum.

I applaud the IRB for the various law trials that are going on presently especially the one going on in the Aviva Premiership regarding the expanded role of the TMO which had it been in place for the game in question would almost certainly have seen the TMO raise it with the Ref and recommend a red card for Hore. However although the IRB are making some progress with changes on the field it's high time we saw some changes off the field.

Since going professional there has been a schism in Rugby with playing, training, tactics and the commercial side become more professional but at the same time the judiciary and general administration in the IRB and the various unions has remained distinctly amateur. It's about time these areas of the game were brought up to date for the professional era.

 

[Dan54]

Wonder what the official response from the Lords of Darkness is going to be?

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.

HJ I know where you coming from, but if you read his statement he has copped it from the senior team members, in AB rugby that is a very powerful part of touring team. As for NZRU topping up ban, if any teams did that would open door to an awful lot of legal battles I imagine. I thought it would be 8 weeks myself, and admit don't know where they got open hand from, but imagine they would of seen a lot more videos than me, so would of seen something to say that. While saying I thought 8 weeks would be what he would get, I think the damage to his reputation is going to hurt more.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Hore got 8 weeks which is the maximum for the charge and got time off for his record and showing remorse. What's the problem?

Sent using Tapatalk

i do like this post but i'm troubled by the remorse bit: it was only made public after the hearing. Was there remorse before that time and, if there was, why wasnt it made public?
had it been made public this thread might only now be getting onto page 2 and everyone would think Ok - brain explosion, good bloke, shit happens.
Badly handled in that regard.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

i do like this post but i'm troubled by the remorse bit: it was only made public after the hearing. Was there remorse before that time and, if there was, why wasnt it made public?
had it been made public this thread might only now be getting onto page 2 and everyone would think Ok - brain explosion, good bloke, shit happens.
Badly handled in that regard.

I couldn't agree less. Why does the media need to be involved? To stop fools like Mark Reason writing his shit so every inbred and his donkey can assume his assumptions are right and start a character assasination? So they can now end up looking like fools.

Andrew Hore hurt Bradley Davies. Andrew Hore called Bradley Davies and spoke to him to apologise, check up on his well being and show regret & remorse for his actions. Bradley Davies accepted his apology and said he understood and no hard feelings at all.

Why some people seem to think that this had to happen through twitter, facebook, myspace, media announcements, I'll never know.

 

[Dan54]

Also IS as I said earlier, protocol is that noone from team should be saying to much in press before hearing anyway, though I agree with MR would you rather he said it to press, or to the person he hurt? Meyer from Boks apologised for Greyling after hearing, at the correct time.

 

[Dan54]

Actually just reading Davies reponse to incident, he says it over and time to move on, also interesting to see him say he actually understands how things like this happen, as he did similar thing last year and copped a 7 week ban.

 

[Sully]

I don't know what gaga fairy land some of you live in but

1. the judiciary doesn't create a frame work it works in the framework provided by the IRB and it's member unions
2. Why and how could the judiciary make public evidence presented to it at it's hearing before the hearing.
3. Why do we need to know that Hore had visited the hospital to apoligise.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I don't know what gaga fairy land some of you live in but

1. the judiciary doesn't create a frame work it works in the framework provided by the IRB and it's member unions
2. Why and how could the judiciary make public evidence presented to it at it's hearing before the hearing.
3. Why do we need to know that Hore had visited the hospital to apoligise.

Blokes like Hore owe the game a lot - they should protect its image.
The quickest simplest and easiest way to do that was to 'fess up publicly, including expressing regret.
Not doing so makes the game appear as if it is for thugs and gives the appearance that there is something in the complaint that the victims in this are NZ.
A parent choosing between soccer and rugby who sees hesitation on the part of the perpetrator and his team to admit to wrongdoing that is blatant is entitled to come to the view that there is tacit acceptance of this kind of violence.
The suggestion that it should be "taken like a man", see what they can prove and if we cant beat the charge we'll prove our contrition is hollow and medieval.
Had player and management dealt with this as i suggest the poms, welsh and the press would not have had the field day they have.

 

[Sully]

Blokes like Hore owe the game a lot - they should protect its image.
The quickest simplest and easiest way to do that was to 'fess up publicly, including expressing regret.
Not doing so makes the game appear as if it is for thugs and gives the appearance that there is something in the complaint that the victims in this are NZ.
A parent choosing between soccer and rugby who sees hesitation on the part of the perpetrator and his team to admit to wrongdoing that is blatant is entitled to come to the view that there is tacit acceptance of this kind of violence.
The suggestion that it should be "taken like a man", see what they can prove and if we cant beat the charge we'll prove our contrition is hollow and medieval.
Had player and management dealt with this as i suggest the poms, welsh and the press would not have had the field day they have.

Why did you quote my post and speak about something completely different to what I said?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Why did you quote my post and speak about something completely different to what I said?

3

 

[Sully]

3

But we do know that.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

We only know it now -

Wellington - New Zealand hooker Andrew Hore apologised on Thursday for a hit from behind on Wales lock Bradley Davies that resulted in a five-match ban, saying he had let down his team and the entire country.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Hore-apologises-for-Wales-hit-20121129

I think there are 2 concepts being confused:
(a) Whether Hore did the right thing; and
(b) Whether Hore was seen by the uninformed member of the public to do the right thing.

I am only addressing the second because it is the second that affects the game's image.

 

[Sully]

Are you serious? The game's image was tarnished on Saturday! Mum's don't think

'Oh that man punched that other man in the back of the head but it's okay because he apologised straight away.'

They think

'That man punched that other man in the back of the head. Timmy is playing poofball this year.'

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Are you serious? The game's image was tarnished on Saturday! Mum's don't think

They think

And leaving it at that to fester for 4 days did nothing to repair the harm done.

 

[cyclopath]

Move along. This thread is festering, and this argument is going nowhere.

 

[It is what it is]

Enough.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

As the end of the season beckons (for SH players), there seems to be little point in defining bans for them in terms of weeks.

For a SH player there isn't too much footy played in the next 12 weeks, so to out someone for two weeks a ban of 14 weeks is required.

This could confuse many. If a SH player and a NH player go before judiciary equally guilty under equal circumstances etc and the offence warrats missing 2 games, the NH player will get 2 weeks and the SH player will be banned for 14 weeks.