Hore gets 5 weeks

This will probably start a fire as some will see 5 weeks as lenient others may disagree. In my opinion banning someone in weeks is ridiculous. It should be in matches as he will only miss this England game, unless I am mistaken?

I agree with Chewed mintie despite his inability to finish sen

Meh...they got the importnat game covered, and made Auklanlaurie and the NZ Herald look like twonks. Thats all that counts.

Are to elaborate PSW? The NZ Herald have been busy launching a crusade on this

It should definitely be matches in my opinion. Missing 5 matches at the level (or higher than) the level of the offence. No rugby can be played at any rugby level by the guilty party until the 5 matches have passed.

The incident kind of ruined the game. Totally out of order and IMO he can consider himself lucky not to be banned for longer.

screamingaddabs wrote:It should definitely be matches in my opinion. Missing 5 matches at the level (or higher than) the level of the offence. No rugby can be played at any rugby level by the guilty party until the 5 matches have passed.

Problem with that is that a tongan banned for 2 test matches could have to wait a year before playing any form of rugby again.

Personally I have no problem with weeks - but it should not include the off-season. So whatever is left at the end of the season carries over to the new one. Of course there are ways around that - the player could be loaned out to a side playing matches at different times of year etc.

thing is 5 weeks seems about right.

I agree that 5 matches would be more reflective of the incident.

When is the report out?

I agree on 5 weeks too although I expect some people in here were aiming for the death penalty.

LondonTiger wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:It should definitely be matches in my opinion. Missing 5 matches at the level (or higher than) the level of the offence. No rugby can be played at any rugby level by the guilty party until the 5 matches have passed.

Problem with that is that a tongan banned for 2 test matches could have to wait a year before playing any form of rugby again.

Personally I have no problem with weeks - but it should not include the off-season. So whatever is left at the end of the season carries over to the new one. Of course there are ways around that - the player could be loaned out to a side playing matches at different times of year etc.

thing is 5 weeks seems about right.

The problem with weeks is things like the Argentinian players. Which season? What counts as off season?

Maybe amend my idea to include international and top club/franchise rugby in the same bracket. That's what I meant, but not what I typed

Hore gets 5 weeks yet some V2 posters get lifetime bans.......

rodders wrote:Hore gets 5 weeks yet some V2 posters get lifetime bans.......

Yeah but did Hersh show any acceptance of guilt, genuine remorse, exemplary disciplinary record, regular church-going and good conduct during the hearing.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

rodders wrote:Hore gets 5 weeks yet some V2 posters get lifetime bans.......

Yeah but did Hersh show any acceptance of guilt, genuine remorse, exemplary disciplinary record, regular church-going and good conduct during the hearing.

Did he get a hearing?

Can he cook???

OzT wrote:Can he cook???

he could stir

BBC: "The Judicial Officer found that the player had not intended to make contact with the victim player's head and this was taken into account"

Mmmmm, what part of the body in particular was he intending to make contact with

He has been banned untill 24th of feb, which is 5 matches which seams fair. Unfortunatly it includes 3 pre-season games which dosen't seam that fair.

It did put a damper on an otherwise entertaining game.

so he gets a 2 match ban then.

Total crock... but its the system not the player we should be angry at.

Allowing such loopholes is crazy.

So this is literally in the same ballpark as James Haskell who got 4 weeks for punching a dude who was scqueezing his balls in a scrum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm2gqGHi4vw

watch the punch at 1.30 mins in. The guy wasn't knocked down.

So similar then.

"The Judicial Officer found that the player had not intended to make contact with the victim player's head and this was taken into account"

so what part WAS he intending to make contact with? his back, his shoulder?

it was a clear fisted swing to the top half of his body/neck, of COURSE he was sorry, he was bloody caught.

Bans should be numbered in terms of games... not weeks, with the ability to ban for international matches separately to club games on the basis that some players need to relinquish the right to wear a National shirt for a time having damaged the national reputation too.

Far too lenient, bollox excuse that he did not intend to hit the head. should have faced a criminal prosecution and a 6 month ban.

That sort of thuggery needs to be stamped out of the game

It is games, he misses 1 for the ABs, 3 pre-season and 1 super 15

3 pre season matches that he would not have played in anyway.

fa0019 wrote:3 pre season matches that he would not have played in anyway.

He probably would have played at least one of them. But unlikely all three.

Well we all knew it was coming, 2/3/4/5/6 weeks and he would miss 1 game. Big whoop!!

Maybe the welsh boys should throw a few round houses on saturday without getting caught, maybe put Phipps and Beale in hospital then theres a fair chance we could... lose by a point or two

nathan wrote:I agree on 5 weeks too although I expect some people in here were aiming for the death penalty.

That was my hope. Anything less is just pandering to the hand wringing liberals left. We've become such a weak society

Not with Wayne Barnes reffing - he doesn't miss a thing

I declare an interest. I am a Welsh supporter. I also write inflammatory, sensationalist pieces about New Zealand...

I'm not happy. Not about this particular case, in general. I'll explain.

The off season is not supposed to be counted now. In this case though the pre season games are included, meaning Hore will miss one test match, 3 friendlies and one competitive domestic match. Now don't get me wrong, pre season is important and all, but he is being banned for punching an opponent, not for spilling paint is a kindergarten. If off season doesn't count it doesn't count. Or does it count, if you ask nicely? This is another instance where the disciplinary board are making it up on the hop. How on earth is anybody to know where they stand? Most unprofessional of them.

Secondly, I think the finding of 'not aiming for the head' is distasteful. If you give credit for 'coughing it' that' s fine, but it should be reduced or wiped out alltogether for such blatant minimalisation of what happened. You can't have it both ways. It should not be a case of "I accept responsibility but only on my terms". No, just no.

Thirdly, 5 weeks. Actually how do you quantify what a ban should be if not in terms of seasons? 3, 5, 7 even 9 weeks are a minor inconvenience in the span of a player's career. That's what we have here, but 5 weeks, plus or minus a month, who cares? Is it any punishment or deterrent? Not really is it? Objectively. Again this is a general criticism, not only of this case. In my view don't bother with citing unless you are prepared to go the whole hog and dish out some serious sanctions as a deterrent. Also Davies will miss a test match and two Heineken Cup matches at least, that is, he and his teams will suffer more of an impact than Hore and his teams will. Is that right?

See, I can be a good boy and not make references to why the All Blacks always seem to get away with everything...

chewed_mintie wrote:Are to elaborate PSW? The NZ Herald have been busy launching a crusade on this

Exactly , they spent ages stating how th English media was goign to force one of their players to live on Jupiter for being alive.

Instead he cops a 5 week ban for a pretty brutal assualt, whereas their hate figure Hartley got 12 weks for being fish hooked.



Can I just say how gratifying it is to see at least half the posts on this topic have been openly silly and jovial. Makes a nice change from the po faced hyperbole and aggression expected.

Jupiter's too good for him, fire him into the centre of the Sun. That'll learn him, froth, froth.

Apparently the judge was impressed with how contrite Hore was at the hearing.

How Hore got to express the extent of his contrition with his mouth full is beyond me.

Glas a du wrote:I declare an interest. I am a Welsh supporter. I also write inflammatory, sensationalist pieces about New Zealand...

I'm not happy. Not about this particular case, in general. I'll explain.

The off season is not supposed to be counted now. In this case though the pre season games are included, meaning Hore will miss one test match, 3 friendlies and one competitive domestic match. Now don't get me wrong, pre season is important and all, but he is being banned for punching an opponent, not for spilling paint is a kindergarten. If off season doesn't count it doesn't count. Or does it count, if you ask nicely? This is another instance where the disciplinary board are making it up on the hop. How on earth is anybody to know where they stand? Most unprofessional of them.

Secondly, I think the finding of 'not aiming for the head' is distasteful. If you give credit for 'coughing it' that' s fine, but it should be reduced or wiped out alltogether for such blatant minimalisation of what happened. You can't have it both ways. It should not be a case of "I accept responsibility but only on my terms". No, just no.

Thirdly, 5 weeks. Actually how do you quantify what a ban should be if not in terms of seasons? 3, 5, 7 even 9 weeks are a minor inconvenience in the span of a player's career. That's what we have here, but 5 weeks, plus or minus a month, who cares? Is it any punishment or deterrent? Not really is it? Objectively. Again this is a general criticism, not only of this case. In my view don't bother with citing unless you are prepared to go the whole hog and dish out some serious sanctions as a deterrent. Also Davies will miss a test match and two Heineken Cup matches at least, that is, he and his teams will suffer more of an impact than Hore and his teams will. Is that right?

See, I can be a good boy and not make references to why the All Blacks always seem to get away with everything...

Fair points Glas. And I said much the same about off-season bans when Cueto got given a pretty short (in terms of games missed) ban for contact with the eye area a couple of years back. Sadly the IRB weren't completely paying attention

As far as the "not aiming for the head" bit goes (and I'm idly speculating about this until any transcripts get published) Hore's defence could have argued he was trying for a reach over the shoulder and pull out of the way* - pretty tenuous though.

* I'm now coming around to the opinion that it was the contact with Hore's knee that caused the concussion, as the point of contact with the swinging arm is neck/chin

Regardless, I'd have thought 8 proper competitive matches was appropriate - effectively the England match and half of next year's SXV

It would not be so bad if it was for 5 internationals and hit him in the pocket.

Hore is lucky, 5 weeks is lenient imo. It should have been twice that. I guess it gives him some spare time to shoot some seals but its hardly a fair reflection of the offence. Time the citing system got a look at from the IRB methinks.

glamorganalun wrote:It would not be so bad if it was for 5 internationals and hit him in the pocket.

I'm pretty sure he will take a hit in the pocket, I think NZRU docks a player's pay if suspended.

That's a point, these are professional players. You could of course have shorter bans like this, but wallop them with financial penalties. Perhaps then we could avoid a four match AI schedule

LondonTiger wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:It should definitely be matches in my opinion. Missing 5 matches at the level (or higher than) the level of the offence. No rugby can be played at any rugby level by the guilty party until the 5 matches have passed.

Problem with that is that a tongan banned for 2 test matches could have to wait a year before playing any form of rugby again.

Personally I have no problem with weeks - but it should not include the off-season. So whatever is left at the end of the season carries over to the new one. Of course there are ways around that - the player could be loaned out to a side playing matches at different times of year etc.

thing is 5 weeks seems about right.

Pretty much agree with all of that.

Maybe if there is widespread outrage at the 'leniency' it might prompt a complete review of the whole sorry system.

To be fair its the same ban Manu Tuilagi got for multiple punches on ashton

Don't you hate Len Iancy, what a Bar Steward, Kumquat, Muppet, bumhole he really is.

He gets 5 weeks ban and misses 1 AB game....Oh come on. What did you realy expect him to get?

He is an All Black FFS. I think we should be grate full he got a ban at all.

Usaly All Black players just get a good ticking off. A slap on the hand and nothing more.

I do thinik he should have a longer ban than 5 weeks though.,

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:To be fair its the same ban Manu Tuilagi got for multiple punches on ashton

which was to a man facing him and at least attempting to defend himself. Not to a man facing away.

BANG!

So how long should Davies have been locked up for after dropping the Irish player on his head?

Or Greyling for his assault on McCaw?
etc, etc.

It's all a bit silly suddenly claiming that this offence should attract criminal proceedings.

I wonder what the statute of limitations is for Rougerie's gauge in the RWC final.

I think most people agree that the citing process and punishments are a mess. But to be getting all hysterical over this one and not others seems a bit odd.

Gone, I'd be saying the same if they guy was welsh - This was just an unprovoked punch whiich knocked a big man unconscious. Off the rugby field he'd probably get a sentence. We cannot condone it

And by the way, Davies got a lengthier ban for his ridiculous retailation on the Irish player

Gone, the accusation of double standards whilst accurate, should not in anyway detract from the fact that this couldn't get more obvious, BUT that the panel accepted he didn't mean to punch him in the head. It is a criticism of the panel as much as him. And (best Miss Jean Brodie voice) "two wrongs don't make a right"

I am not in favour of the police getting involved in sport except in rare circumstances of which this is one. there is a huge difference ( morally and in law) between a tackle gone wrong and a punch from behind. Its the difference between doing something recklessly and doing something deliberately

I believe hore should have been arrested and charged for that. Overnight in the cells, magistrate the next morning, £100 fine and on your way

Of course not. It just seems that these thing get a lot more heated when a NZ player is involved.

I was watching with a Welsh guy in a pub in Brno and said to him at the time it looked like a long ban was deserved. However, I as others have, softened a bit when I saw it again several times. Davies deliberate blocking, possibly aiming to only hook him out the way, possibly the knee causing the real damage. So there was always the scope for the punishment to be less than we all (almost?) think it should be. The punishment had to fit in with the guidelines (max 8 weeks?) and previous, similar offences.

I will say it again the whole sorry system needs to be looked at.

For the record, I agree a minimum number of S15/Tests missed ought to be higher. Any deliberate attack to the head(Thomson/Greyling) should attract a long ban as should any accidental contact with the head which results from foul play(Hore?).

goneagain wrote:

I think most people agree that the citing process and punishments are a mess. But to be getting all hysterical over this one and not others seems a bit odd.

There was plenty of people willing to get hysterical over those.

goneagain wrote:Of course not. It just seems that these thing get a lot more heated when a NZ player is involved.

Just wait till Dylan Hartley gets fishhooked again, then youll see hysterical

Davies got a yellow in the game and a 7-week ban. Mind you, what he did was at least as dangerous.

It's a very difficult question where the law should step in. You have to accept that in the heat of a pro rugby game you can't hold people to ordinary standards of behaviour. It's fairly understandable that the Tuilagi/Ashton sort of incident happens. The sly attempt to injure a player seriously is a different kettle of fish. To me, if the rugby authorities don't really crack down on that sort of behaviour, the criminal law should step in.

I do think the sanction on Hore is a bit of a joke. Even the knee looked deliberate to me.