Hore gets 5 weeks

First topic message reminder :

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?

And again - so its Davies fault that Hore knocked him out with a blow from behind. marvellous

Wasnt Mandelson the "three strikes" guy, Hore only copped Davies once.

Yep, if only we had a lawyer around who knows all about this sort of thing.

PJHolybloke wrote:Yep, if only we had a lawyer around who knows all about this sort of thing.

I have a fairly low opinion of Lawyers too PJ but I think it's a bit off to suggest that they all go around thumping folk who get in their way!

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Glas a du wrote:

Casartelli wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Glas a du wrote:He threw the punch so hard he lost his footing pirouetted and landed on him. Call me old fashioned but what Davies was doing/going to do could not possibly justify that.

Glas du: I never saw a punch...Do you have some fresh evidence that none of us, including the IRB are aware of?

This is a good point. A closer look at the pics of the incident show that Hore actually strikes Davies with the bony part of the inside of the wrist/forearm in some sort of martial arts move that looks much more dangerous than a mere punch.

I suspect this is why the IRB have quickly put out a view that it wasn't intentional. A couple of inches higher and it would have caved the side of Davies' face in.

In a Court it doesn't really matter about how you do it, if you strike somebody you cop it for the resulting injuries.

In a court of law the victim (Davies) would have to give evidence, thus exposing him to cross examination by the defence, and any half competent lawyer would then be able to show the court that Davies provoked the whole incident.

Even if he did provoke it, by running in front of Hore, using nasty language, whatever it took, Davies didn't force Hore to knock him out. That was Hore's own stupid decision. Hore obviously worked the jury well to get three weeks knocked off his ban. He should be happy with that and learn quickly not to do such again

If you honestly think this case would go in Hore's favour in a law court you are incredibly delusional.

MrsP wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:Yep, if only we had a lawyer around who knows all about this sort of thing.

I have a fairly low opinion of Lawyers too PJ but I think it's a bit off to suggest that they all go around thumping folk who get in their way!

Like it. Maybe we could do a double act?

Bytheway, it wasn't a thump and it was an accident, so we must be careful about that.

Telegram for Hore:

Oi.Hore.sue.and.be.damned.

maestegmafia wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Glas a du wrote:

Casartelli wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Glas a du wrote:He threw the punch so hard he lost his footing pirouetted and landed on him. Call me old fashioned but what Davies was doing/going to do could not possibly justify that.

Glas du: I never saw a punch...Do you have some fresh evidence that none of us, including the IRB are aware of?

This is a good point. A closer look at the pics of the incident show that Hore actually strikes Davies with the bony part of the inside of the wrist/forearm in some sort of martial arts move that looks much more dangerous than a mere punch.

I suspect this is why the IRB have quickly put out a view that it wasn't intentional. A couple of inches higher and it would have caved the side of Davies' face in.

In a Court it doesn't really matter about how you do it, if you strike somebody you cop it for the resulting injuries.

In a court of law the victim (Davies) would have to give evidence, thus exposing him to cross examination by the defence, and any half competent lawyer would then be able to show the court that Davies provoked the whole incident.

Even if he did provoke it, by running in front of Hore, using nasty language, whatever it took, Davies didn't force Hore to knock him out. That was Hore's own stupid decision. Hore obviously worked the jury well to get three weeks knocked off his ban. He should be happy with that and learn quickly not to do such again

If you honestly think this case would go in Hore's favour in a law court you are incredibly delusional.

Maesteg he did more than that, he even shaved his mo off, look good in front of the beak and all that.

Did he? That's grate.

I think we need to differentiate between finding a reason for what Hore did and yet acknowledging that although that may explain why he lashed out, it in no way excuses his actions.

I also think we need to see that there is a difference between him deliberately hitting Davies and him intending to seriously injure him.

I suspect there was very little activity in Hore's cortex at that moment. Hard for me to say if that is his usual state or not as I know nothing of the man but, given his clean disciplinary record I think we can assume his actions were not part of an on going pattern.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Glas a du wrote:

Casartelli wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Glas a du wrote:He threw the punch so hard he lost his footing pirouetted and landed on him. Call me old fashioned but what Davies was doing/going to do could not possibly justify that.

Glas du: I never saw a punch...Do you have some fresh evidence that none of us, including the IRB are aware of?

This is a good point. A closer look at the pics of the incident show that Hore actually strikes Davies with the bony part of the inside of the wrist/forearm in some sort of martial arts move that looks much more dangerous than a mere punch.

I suspect this is why the IRB have quickly put out a view that it wasn't intentional. A couple of inches higher and it would have caved the side of Davies' face in.

In a Court it doesn't really matter about how you do it, if you strike somebody you cop it for the resulting injuries.

In a court of law the victim (Davies) would have to give evidence, thus exposing him to cross examination by the defence, and any half competent lawyer would then be able to show the court that Davies provoked the whole incident.

Even if he did provoke it, by running in front of Hore, using nasty language, whatever it took, Davies didn't force Hore to knock him out. That was Hore's own stupid decision. Hore obviously worked the jury well to get three weeks knocked off his ban. He should be happy with that and learn quickly not to do such again

If you honestly think this case would go in Hore's favour in a law court you are incredibly delusional.

Maesteg he did more than that, he even shaved his mo off, look good in front of the beak and all that.

Thats a shame about the mo, what with "Movember" and all. You would think good charity work would go in his favour?

So he ditched his charitable pledge for personal gain?

That grates.

PJHolybloke wrote:Yep, if only we had a lawyer around who knows all about this sort of thing.

The Meaning of Common Assault

An assault is used to describe both an assault and battery, and indeed, there is often confusion between both the two offences.
Battery – contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
Common Assault – contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

What is the Definition of Common Assault?

This is any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. Such an act must be with the intent being calculated in that persons mind to cause apprehension or fear in the mind of the victim. Therefore, where there is no intent, there will be not be an assault, UNLESS, that the person who assaulted another, (and it was conclusive by way of evidence), that the person was indeed reckless as to the other person would in all probability have indeed apprehended that immediate unlawful violence would be used.

Common assault and battery are summary offences, which means that the matter may only be tried in a Magistrates Court, and if found guilty have a maximum penalty not exceeding six months imprisonment or a fine not exceeding £5,000.00

..... the rest is boring!

See, even being a lawyer type doesn't make it any more straightforward!

Where's the bit about hanging?

MrsP wrote:I think we need to differentiate between finding a reason for what Hore did and yet acknowledging that although that may explain why he lashed out, it in no way excuses his actions.

I also think we need to see that there is a difference between him deliberately hitting Davies and him intending to seriously injure him.

I suspect there was very little activity in Hore's cortex at that moment. Hard for me to say if that is his usual state or not as I know nothing of the man but, given his clean disciplinary record I think we can assume his actions were not part of an on going pattern.

First paragraph is absolutely right, empathy is an important part of the judicial process.

Second paragraph, not so sure. He deliberately strikes him and must accept the consequences of his deliberate act, even if reckless as to the extent of suffering he would cause.

He's been done for killing seal cubs.

Brad Davies interview post incident.

Davies suffered a serious concussion and was taken to hospital, with the blow leading to the Cardiff Blues lock being unable to remember anything from the two days prior to the Test match and the day of the game itself.

"I felt very groggy for a while afterwards," said Davies to WalesOnline.

"My last memory before the game was last Wednesday and my mind has pretty much gone blank since then. I was in college doing a plumbing course and I cut my finger with a hacksaw. That was the last thing I can remember."

"I was actually only out cold for a couple of seconds on Saturday, but when I came to, I had lost all my short-term memory. That was strange because that had never happened to me before.

"I have been knocked out loads of time, but nothing like this has happened. It is not nice waking up and not knowing what has gone on. It also dented my pride a bit that I lasted less than a minute!

"After the game I was gone and I did not have a clue what was going on. Apparently I was asking the same question over and over again! On Sunday I was still a bit fragile and did not make much sense."

Davies is now eager to put the incident behind him, revealing that he has spoken to Hore who called Davies to apologise.

"It was a bit naughty, but he caught me a cracker and that is rugby," added Davies.

"I don't think he tried to knock me out. It is just one of those things. I got in his way and he caught me flush on the jaw.

"I know what he is going through because I got banned last season for seven weeks and missed the Six Nations and Grand Slam for a stupid off-the-ball incident in the opening match in Ireland.

"People ask you why you do it. But it is hard to explain and you can't answer them because you don't know yourself. I am not sure how they branded the ban because I had a 14-week suspension that was halved to seven which I thought was harsh at the time.

"But the incident has gone and I hold no grudges. He has called and texted me to apologise and I would like to leave it there."

"Hopefully I will be back next week, but I have to keep passing these knockout tests."

"It is tough enough when you are normal, never mind when you have had a bang on the head!

"There are all different questions and you have balance and do memory tests and recite the months of the year backwards. That is difficult enough when you are fine."

http://planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_8292511,00.html

Seal cubs? The ones with the big bwown eyes and fuwwy ickle faces?

What a beastly man!

Good on Davies for making the point that Hore phoned him on Sunday to apologise.

Good of Hore to apologise. Gets half a point for good behaviour

An interesting read Maesteg. That's a hell of a "not a punch" he got there, sounds like a case of minor brain damage - Davies doesn't sound right either.

Bradley Davies!

Take a bow!

The most sense I've heard from a Welshman all week!

Thats classic concussion symptoms.

I think the question he asked over and over was

"What flicking hit me!"

Glas a du wrote:I think the question he asked over and over was

"What flicking hit me!"

Or what the Mayor of Hiroshima said "What the f..k was that?"

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Glas a du wrote:I think the question he asked over and over was

"What flicking hit me!"

Or what the Mayor of Hiroshima said "What the f..k was that?"

Jeez, did Hore hit him too? That bloke's got a problem.

He's the H in H Bomb.

TJ you may want to read this:

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/our-experts/8005843/Hansens-silence-says-a-lot-about-NZ-rugby

Read it. its a bit over the top and plays to the stereotypes but his is why the stereotype exists.

this is partly why I think there should have been criminal charges - to set the tone that this sort of deliberate injuring of a player who cannot defend himself is not acceptable at any time in any circumstance. just the usual night in the cells nd £100 fine would do - its the symbol that is important.

PJHolybloke wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Glas a du wrote:I think the question he asked over and over was

"What flicking hit me!"

Or what the Mayor of Hiroshima said "What the f..k was that?"

Jeez, did Hore hit him too? That bloke's got a problem.

He's been around a while then, this Hore?

Oldest profession and all that Asbo

Yes TJ, but the first step is for them to recognise they have a problem. This guy does, but how many Kiwis reading the article would call him a 'softkock' as Davies was called Saturday night?

I'd just like to give some credit where it's due. I've not always been a big fan of Chris Rattue from the New Zealand herald. Mainly because of the 'village idiot' thing, but often he likes to take the mick or belittle us 'poms' (we have our equivalents too of course). However, I always like to read opposition nation's papers after an international (those I can read - which restricts to English speaking countries!) and I was expecting a defence of Hore from Rattue, based on previous articles and my subsequent expectation that he'd defend the All Blacks no matter what. I was therefore very pleasantly surprised to find him highly critically of Hore initially, and more recently the management (Hansen) for their silence and therefore lack of apology or condemnation of the player.

So, credit where it's due. Good on you Mr Rattue. I salute you.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10850363

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/chris-rattue/news/article.cfm?a_id=22&objectid=10849889

See he'll do anything to cause controversy, that's a controversial opinion in NZ!

(Note: that was a joke)

Has everyone had their say? Might be worth moving on?

No!



Yes.

Hore Apologises

“I want to say how bad I feel and how embarrassed I am to be in this situation,” said Hore. “It is not the All Black way and I have let myself down and the team and probably the whole country is pretty proud of what we do.

“I hope Bradley does recover and get back up and running and play in the Heineken Cup as soon as he can.

“I have been on the phone and talked to him on Sunday about the incident and obviously the All Black management and the leader group that I am a part of has been pretty stern on me for getting us into this situation.

“I have to take what I have got and go back and start building a reputation as a good, clean, hard footy player and hopefully I can do that in the next Super Rugby competition when I get back playing.”

Fair play

Glas a du, the poor man's AWOP.

"Davies is now eager to put the incident behind him, revealing that he has spoken to Hore who called Davies to apologise."

Shocked. Unprecedented for a Kiwi to A admit an indiscretion and B apologise for it. Was he concussed too?

goneagain wrote:Glas a du, the poor man's AWOP.

Ouch!

I love you goneagain,

Call it quits?

It's only cyberspace after all.

if you're ever in czech republic i'll buy you a beer.

Good man.

I am impressed that he's been quite forthright in his statement.

Apologies Pete. I was in there for half a bout but got out before it got worse so unsure what happened after that. Hopefully this will die down now...

It will I estimate once Saturday's match kicks off.

Can someone please explain why in an unprecedented move the ABs have for once not turned a blind eye to their indescretions on the field. Why has Hore actually for once man'd up and firstly admitted to and secondly apologised for filthy play?

Will he be ostracised from the ABs for not lying as per standard procedure or have the ABs collectively decided to take a more honest approach? Anyone know?

move along guns...theres no life left in this one. Turn the light out will you on your way out...theres a good boy.

Jeez again, the attacks for when they do something credit worthy and disprove the myth.

The statements form both players tell the true story about this whole thing, and do their nations much more credit than the fans do.

I have a lot of respect for Hore for maning up. Just wondering if he will be the exception or the norm for the ABs going forward. Rugby is a tough game, I myself have done worse than Hore on the rugby field and I bet most posters have too.

Just cant stand this business of pretending it was an accident or not having the nads to admit what you did.