p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
Now Horwill has stopped on heads on three occasions? Do you have footage?
James Horwill cited for stamping
- Thread starter disco
- Start date
- Status
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
No player should have been put through what is now going on.
If the IRB had to do this they should have flown the expat Pom to Australia in the ensuing days so that Horwill did not have to lose a night's sleep.
Amateur hour.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
If the IRB had to do this they should have flown the expat Pom to Australia in the ensuing days so that Horwill did not have to lose a night's sleep.
Amateur hour.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
In the case of So'oialo, even Strauss accepted that there was maliciousness in the incident and it was probably an accident. Strauss also didn't receive an injury from the incident unlike AWJ. This is also the firdt time So'oialo has done this - unlike Horwill. I dae say if So'oialo does it again he can expect some time off.
As for Farrell, I don't see any contact on the video. I'm not saying it didn't happen ( and I am watching on an iphone screen) but the contact Horwill makes is far more obvious to me.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
I've never said he stomped on 3 peoples heads.
There is footage of two incidents and he received an off-field yellow for stamping a 3rd person.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
How do you non maliciously grab someone by the balls?
The decision is far worse than horwill on any view of it.
You cannot get it into your head that prior incidents only count on penalty.
You don't understand that for most of us if not all of us the issue is the process that has been invoked.
I know the kiwis like to maintain their ties with the motherland (hence the imperial honours for one thing) but we have always been a little more inclined to challenge the poms right to control us.
It's odd that in the whole world the only bloke or bird qualified to rehear this farce was an ex pat Pom who could not be flown to Australia for the purpose.
I think we've got the drift of your sentiment - which is all it is.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
jollyswagman
Ron Walden (29)
I think the technical term is "fondle."
Josh123
Bob McCowan (2)
Farrel is a back and probably enters less than a third of the rucks horwill does, and I've seen him play less, so the stamp per ruck/maul ratio is probably higher than Horwills!
To say I know nothing about rugby is playing the man not the ball, in any case, I know what I've seen, from kids rugby, to shoddy club rugby to internationals, guys step on angles and arms and occasionally heads.
But we are getting off topic, I'll take your point of view on board, but I still think the irb could better use their time to launch an appeal against other incidents ie Farrel who could see his 'victim' and did more damage than horwill did, but wasn't investigated like horwill was. I also hear that there was a nut kick in the SA game, and the nut grab doesn't look too good too me. On top of that, the abs butchered the frenchmens ego, which is probably the worst injury of the week
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
Fair call mate and I apologise.
I'm of the opinion the ARU would be quite justified in seeking a court injunction against the iRB proceeding with the second hearing. If the iRB's affairs are subject to the laws of Ireland I'd be very surprised if that country allowed persons to be charged with the same offence twice without new evidence. Legal territorial squabbles aside, the ARU should hotfoot it to the nearest Federal Court registry and lodge the appropriate papers. British fish 'n' chip wrapper suppliers passing judgement on our players and squealing to their mates back in Blighty, they can get fucked.
Next time Billy Pulver's in Dublin I fully expect him to pulverise a few tables. No, not expect, DEMAND!
Next time Billy Pulver's in Dublin I fully expect him to pulverise a few tables. No, not expect, DEMAND!
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
Fuck I wish had as well!! LOL
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
Except that Horwill isn't actually being charged again.
The IRB are appealing the decision made by the judicial officer which they are entitled to do under the Laws of the game. In some respect, it it seems to me that it is actually the judicial officer's decision that is on trial. From what I've read about the Thompson case (which followed the same process as this is), the appeal looks at the how the decision was made, what was taken into consideration and what wasn't and how the judicial officer came by his decision. Which may be why an appeal takes longer than the first hearing. The appeal officer doesn't just review the incident but also the the transcript, evidence etc from the original hearing.
From what I've read, the appeal officer wouldn't just need to find Horwill guilty, he would also need to find where the original judicial officer was wrong with his original judgement of the case.
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.
I still reckon the ARU should snooker this second hearing and get an injunction.
Alex
Jimmy Flynn (14)
Not sure there was not the slightest suggestion of such a thing having had occurred.......... I was at the game and didn't see anything - but the Leinster fans certainly posted about it afterwards including some pretty damning pictures - which I did see. Have just done a quick search and can't find a link the stills that were published four years ago but from memory it occurrred when there was a bit of a scrap involving both teams - shaggy came in and paullie dragged him out by his eyesockets. I acknowledge it never made the papers, but it was all over the bulletin boards. Pretty poor that I can't post evidence, I accept, but perhaps the public forums are harder to find things on four years later. Actually surprised by this reaction, certainly my Leinster mates were aware of this (but perhaps thats because I live in Dublin)???? That wasn't meant to be the point of my post and I certainly hope it doesn't detract from the point, which is that rugby has a problem that needs to be fixed, but this is not the way of doing it.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
Lindommer, have you read the Laws in regards to this?
I wish this whole thread went to bed!!
Fark, last thing I remember was offing some numpty troll from London, and this morning someone opened a can of crazy-ass in here.
To whit:-
1. Yes, Horwill has been sanctioned for similar incidents this year - stop asking for footage - he received sanctions
2. Arguing about intent is pointless now - we certainly cannot prove it, and the real issue seems to be the process, or lack thereof being followed here.
3. Rule 10 - a few need to let it go, having made their point REPEATEDLY!
4. Any more playing of the man will get flamed.
churchills cigar
Peter Burge (5)
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.
I am really torn on this matter
Horwill won the lottery when he got off he deserved to be rubbed out, the only argument we should be having is the length of his suspension
Should the IRB fix their system, definitely, of course we haven't heard anything about that, we have had judiciary inconsistencies accross countries for years, it is too often a lottery run by amateurs
So we have an ad hoc review again, to fix a perceived wrong
To me, that Is the issue, the perceived lack of consistency and lack of transparency. Who decided? Will they be reviewing all decisions across the world now?
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
Horwill won the lottery when he got off he deserved to be rubbed out, the only argument we should be having is the length of his suspension
Should the IRB fix their system, definitely, of course we haven't heard anything about that, we have had judiciary inconsistencies accross countries for years, it is too often a lottery run by amateurs
So we have an ad hoc review again, to fix a perceived wrong
To me, that Is the issue, the perceived lack of consistency and lack of transparency. Who decided? Will they be reviewing all decisions across the world now?
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
- Status