Horwill Cited

by jelly Sat 22 Jun 2013, 11:21 pm

First topic message reminder :

Horwill has been cited for "stamping or trampling" on AWJ - no idea what time this happened as nobody seemed to notice at the time.

by beshocked Wed 26 Jun 2013, 11:17 am

nganboy you call citing and cards pointless bickering? No it is not. You are ignoring the fundamental flaws and inconsistencies in disciplining players in world rugby.

Racist?Sigh..... You throw that word around very liberally..... What part of my last comment is racist?

I am racist because I dislike it when players get off scot free? Umaga and Mealamu are NZ players. It's racist to suggest they should be punished like any other rugby player when they do something wrong? Shock horror!

You callously call the BOD incident nothing when it was obviously anything but that. Of course I am going to take exception to that. I am not Irish either. No apology for the disgraceful action was given either.

You need to get your head out of the sand.

I admit when players I support have done wrong. I have said that Brits was a fool for punching Farrell and warrants a ban. Farrell was foolish for goading him and acting provocatively.

Pales in comparison to stamping,gouging and spear tackles but still stupid and unnecessary.

I want players to get punished if they do something illegal. I want to see spear tackles,sly stamps,punches, gouges etc eradicated. That means players need to get punished for these actions.

By letting players off/lightly it is sending the message that discipline in world rugby is actually quite relaxed.

by GunsGerms Wed 26 Jun 2013, 11:25 am

nganboy wrote:Look we know all this stuff about citing and cards is pointless bickering.
I mentioned how I thought the BOD/Umaga/Mealamu incident was nothing.

Droping a guy on his shoulder breaking his collarbone putting him out of the game for almost a year surely isnt nothing no matter where you are from?

Amazed that there are people out there that still dont get it.

by beshocked Wed 26 Jun 2013, 11:32 am

Agree wholeheartedly GunsGerms.

by fa0019 Wed 26 Jun 2013, 11:40 am

Concerning the BOD fiasco.... when new video footage came to light months later by the IRB, the official who went through the initial evidence said that if they had seen that video at the time both players would have been looking at a 6 month ban... and that is from the IRB.

If thats not clear cut then I don't know what is. One of the most cynical acts I've ever seen on a rugby pitch.

Its like saying Calum Clark was just tickling the guy when he accidently broke the other chaps arm.

by ChequeredJersey Wed 26 Jun 2013, 12:29 pm

Apparently Horwill being let off the hook, such as there was one, has ruined rugby forever

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/britishandirishlionsrugby/10139238/Lions-2013-James-Horwill-verdict-means-rugby-union-can-never-again-claim-the-moral-high-ground.html

Got to love the media

by **LondonTiger** Wed 26 Jun 2013, 1:12 pm

CJ,

Tone in the Times yesterday was very similar. Doubt any of us saw the incident live, and I have not seen anything to allow me to judge - the thing posted on these boards was miniature.

Quotes from the management and players suggests they are livid, and believe horwill knew exactly what he was doing.

by GunsGerms Wed 26 Jun 2013, 1:22 pm

LondonTiger wrote:CJ,

Tone in the Times yesterday was very similar. Doubt any of us saw the incident live, and I have not seen anything to allow me to judge - the thing posted on these boards was miniature.

Quotes from the management and players suggests they are livid, and believe horwill knew exactly what he was doing.

That might be the case but it does look like from the video that Horwill didnt see where he was putting his feet.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Wed 26 Jun 2013, 1:25 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:CJ,

Tone in the Times yesterday was very similar. Doubt any of us saw the incident live, and I have not seen anything to allow me to judge - the thing posted on these boards was miniature.

Quotes from the management and players suggests they are livid, and believe horwill knew exactly what he was doing.

That might be the case but it does look like from the video that Horwill didnt see where he was putting his feet.

+1. He was definitely placing the boot at an odd angle, but I don't think he could see what he was stepping on. Still should have been a short ban for "reckless use" of the boot though.

by Big Wed 26 Jun 2013, 1:57 pm

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
+1. He was definitely placing the boot at an odd angle, but I don't think he could see what he was stepping on. Still should have been a short ban for "reckless use" of the boot though.

Would agree with that.

The judgement for Mitchell doesn't look great either in my view. They go for 4 weeks as it is low end, apply the maximum 50% reduction due to good record - fine in my view. Then reduce it from 2 to 1 week as they think two weeks is still too harsh. Something is clearly wrong there. Either the low end ban is too long and they need to get the guidance right, or the adjudicators should stick with the guideline ban (to be honest I think they should do that whether they agree with the guidance or not). How will we ever get even handed treatment if every disciplinary officer is allowed to vary the ban at will. It goes for and against all of us at some point, but that doesn't make it okay. The disciplinary process really needs sorting out, put some effort into getting the guidelines right then make the disciplinary panels stick to them.

by funnyExiledScot Wed 26 Jun 2013, 2:00 pm

Are the IRB not due to review the verdict today?

by GunsGerms Wed 26 Jun 2013, 2:46 pm

Big wrote:
Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
+1. He was definitely placing the boot at an odd angle, but I don't think he could see what he was stepping on. Still should have been a short ban for "reckless use" of the boot though.

Would agree with that.

The judgement for Mitchell doesn't look great either in my view. They go for 4 weeks as it is low end, apply the maximum 50% reduction due to good record - fine in my view. Then reduce it from 2 to 1 week as they think two weeks is still too harsh. Something is clearly wrong there. Either the low end ban is too long and they need to get the guidance right, or the adjudicators should stick with the guideline ban (to be honest I think they should do that whether they agree with the guidance or not). How will we ever get even handed treatment if every disciplinary officer is allowed to vary the ban at will. It goes for and against all of us at some point, but that doesn't make it okay. The disciplinary process really needs sorting out, put some effort into getting the guidelines right then make the disciplinary panels stick to them.

I dont know about the "reckless use" arguement. Its a really tough one, it doesnt allow for genuine accidents. Should you be banned for accidently injuring someone? Not sure really.

Should McCaw have been banned for kneeing Parra in the head in the world cup final for example? Really hard to know.

by doctor_grey Thu 27 Jun 2013, 7:27 am

Nah, although Parra is very good, he is still a scrum-half. Therefore deserves a little abuse. Just because.

by Taylorman Thu 27 Jun 2013, 7:34 am

doctor_grey wrote:Nah, although Parra is very good, he is still a scrum-half. Therefore deserves a little abuse. Just because.

Good call Doc...and when he's telling his grand kids he can tell them he was abused by a....real.... life..... GOD! not many can say that these days...

by doctor_grey Thu 27 Jun 2013, 7:37 am

Oh boy. You could get into an argument with some of the Irish posters who believe O'Driscoll is a God. Would be a neat steel cage match: Two gods enter, one god leaves.

We English don't have to worry about this stuff. We have Owen Farrell............

by OzT Thu 27 Jun 2013, 8:59 am

and a bladdy good sense of humour!! Smile

by GunsGerms Thu 27 Jun 2013, 9:26 am

doctor_grey wrote:Nah, although Parra is very good, he is still a scrum-half. Therefore deserves a little abuse. Just because.

Cant say I disagree.

by GunsGerms Thu 27 Jun 2013, 9:29 am

doctor_grey wrote:Oh boy. You could get into an argument with some of the Irish posters who believe O'Driscoll is a God. Would be a neat steel cage match: Two gods enter, one god leaves.

We English don't have to worry about this stuff. We have Owen Farrell............

A cage fight between MCaw and Drico? That would be box office. I sure MCaw would try to take the fight to the ground while Drico would prefer to dance around the octagon.

by Guest Thu 27 Jun 2013, 9:34 am

doctor_grey wrote:Oh boy. You could get into an argument with some of the Irish posters who believe O'Driscoll is a God. Would be a neat steel cage match: Two gods enter, one god leaves.

We English don't have to worry about this stuff. We have Owen Farrell............

Hey, the only God to mention is the up'n'coming youngster in the Dragons region - Geraint O'Driscoll. A GOD is born! Watch this space.

by lostinwales Thu 27 Jun 2013, 11:21 am

IRB are appealing the decision

by Knackeredknees Thu 27 Jun 2013, 11:23 am

lostinwales wrote:IRB are appealing the decision

Beat me to it!

The IRB. After looking at the decision have decided to appeal it! Does this mean horwell can't play?

by lostinwales Thu 27 Jun 2013, 11:28 am

The appeal will be heard by Graeme Mew (Canada) following the second Test between Australia and the British & Irish Lions. Horwill is free to play pending the outcome of the appeal.

by GunsGerms Thu 27 Jun 2013, 11:43 am

Up until now I have pretty much backed Horwill and gave him the benefit of the doubt. However, having watched the video again and as someone has pointed out it makes no sense for him to thrust his foot back in the manner he did other than to connect with someone. It certainly couldnt have been for balance. Also given that the Lions had the ball it cant have been out of frustration for a guy lying on the wrong side. While it would still be hard to prove Horwill intentionally stamped it does look a little more suspicious that I had previously thought.

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 27 Jun 2013, 11:47 am

Interesting. The IRB appeals its own citing commission's findings?

So far as I knew no TV/internet pictures showed any evidence.

Is this the equivalent of a tin-pot State iteratively asking for re-elections until the electorate finally succumbs and gets its judgement wrong?

by Big Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:59 pm

You see I struggle to get beyond the fact that in my many years of playing I have never accidentally trodden on anyone, and I'm one of the clumsiest people to have ever picked up a rugby ball. To the best of my recollection, nor have any of my team mates or the opposition. Of course rucking was allowed then, so there were plenty of occasions where we trod on people intentionally - but that's a different matter. Always knew when there was someone there, and always made a point of going for arms/bodies on the ball and not head or neck.

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 27 Jun 2013, 1:21 pm

It's all more than a bit subjective really.

Similar to refs' TMO requests:

Is there any reason not to assume that Hartley bit Ferris?

As opposed to

Did Horwill commit an act of foul play?

by SecretFly Thu 27 Jun 2013, 1:26 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Interesting. The IRB appeals its own citing commission's findings?

So far as I knew no TV/internet pictures showed any evidence.

Is this the equivalent of a tin-pot State iteratively asking for re-elections until the electorate finally succumbs and gets its judgement wrong?

Showed no evidence of what? An action or intention?

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 27 Jun 2013, 1:36 pm

Not quite sure what you mean SF. Possibly one day in the future, mobile CAT scanners to monitor brain activity may be called into evidence acts of intention.

by SecretFly Thu 27 Jun 2013, 1:49 pm

There you go. You need no mobile CAT scanners as that's exactly what I 'mean', Portnoy. Good mind reading there.

You said as far as you knew, no TV/Internet pictures showed any evidence.

No evidence of Horwill stamping? Or no evidence of him thinking he was doing a bad thing when stamping? Wink

Which evidence did the TV/Internet pictures not show?

by Guest Thu 27 Jun 2013, 3:56 pm

Glad to see the IRB have appealed the citing commissions ruling. Good for rugby, methinks.
Whether Horwill knew what he was doing, or not, a penalty should have been imposed for reckless use of the boot at least.
I can't know if Horwell intended to stamp on another players head, but I do have to question that if he didn't intend injury then what on earth was he doing placing his boot where he did? If there was no intent it just doesn't make sense to me.
Some say that he couldn't actually see where his boot was going to make contact, which is fair enough, but then sometimes in a game you really don't have to have a visual as experience and instinct lead the way.
Just my thoughts, and it still could be that he didn't really intend injury...maybe....

by daiglass63 Thu 27 Jun 2013, 4:53 pm

No doubt in my mind, he new what he was doing.

The sky pictures showed from behind on Tues show that there was definate intent to make contact with the player. Also, all of the panel were convinced that he deliberately stamped on AWJ, and they are best to judge, all being past international players.

At last the IRB showing some leadership. He deserves a lengthy ban in my opinion!

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Thu 27 Jun 2013, 5:49 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Interesting. The IRB appeals its own citing commission's findings?

So far as I knew no TV/internet pictures showed any evidence.

Is this the equivalent of a tin-pot State iteratively asking for re-elections until the electorate finally succumbs and gets its judgement wrong?

Interesting new trend then following on from the Hore ban length appeal in the AIs - at least Mark Reason (ref. the link I posted up-thread) will be happy.

I see Brian Moore is unhappy - tweeting that judicial processes should be independent, even if they're wrong.

by HammerofThunor Thu 27 Jun 2013, 6:09 pm

daiglass63 wrote:No doubt in my mind, he new what he was doing.

The sky pictures showed from behind on Tues show that there was definate intent to make contact with the player. Also, all of the panel were convinced that he deliberately stamped on AWJ, and they are best to judge, all being past international players.

At last the IRB showing some leadership. He deserves a lengthy ban in my opinion!

This is a joke right?

by GloriousEmpire Thu 27 Jun 2013, 6:14 pm

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. It doesn't change reality though. No doubt we will have to suffer more brainless jibes from the sky commentary team throughout Saturdays build up and test..."controversial captain Horwill" and every ruck will be met with "Horwill keeps his feet to himself" yawn yawn and so on.

Personally I think Sky should be liable for some of the inflammatory rubbish they broadcast. Remember the Warburton spear tackle in the RWC semi? They were advocating a lynching of the referee in question until 48 hours later when they realised they were totally wrong.

by SecretFly Thu 27 Jun 2013, 7:10 pm

It didn't take 48 hours for the rest of us to see what we saw ...just like Horwill's episode. We're not waiting for citing people to tell us what we saw or should have seen. We're looking at the footage for ourselves. Findings are not facts - rulings are not fact. They are judgements based on fallible opinions (just like ours).

So.....reality? I say he stamped where he shouldn't have stamped with intent.... others disagree. But reality is the truth not the ruling though.

by GloriousEmpire Thu 27 Jun 2013, 7:12 pm

I wonder why nobody mentioned it until the media frenzy broke out? Interesting all these people "making up their own minds" isn't it? Hmmmm...

by SecretFly Thu 27 Jun 2013, 7:37 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:I wonder why nobody mentioned it until the media frenzy broke out? Interesting all these people "making up their own minds" isn't it? Hmmmm...

Well do the run back on this thread. What did I say? A little gif offered as evidence of wrongdoing originally. I didn't see a whole lot to begin with...said as much...then I blew up the gif and looked again...over and over and over.
Yep, I finally concluded - that's much more serious than at first it appears and he has a real case to answer. This was before the media frenzy began.... before I looked at or heard any of the media stuff.

Wrongdoing doesn't have to be something big and dramatic and easily viewable in realtime. Wrongdoing just has to occur and if the citing people catch it or if players report it, then it gets investigated and even the commissioners are directed then to an incident they mightn't have caught in realtime either. We're all looking at the past - both critics of Horwill and the citing guy that said nothing much happened.

But my eyes just won't let me see innocence in that movement, Glorious. My eyes - not the media leading me here or there and a citing commissioner leading me somewhere else. Me and my eyes. You and your eyes see something completely different. There you go....

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 27 Jun 2013, 7:49 pm

Interesting.
I was watching the wrong vid.
Seeing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQOQv14hwuc I see the outrage.
Sorry.
(I do sorry)

by aucklandlaurie Thu 27 Jun 2013, 9:50 pm

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Interesting. The IRB appeals its own citing commission's findings?

So far as I knew no TV/internet pictures showed any evidence.

Is this the equivalent of a tin-pot State iteratively asking for re-elections until the electorate finally succumbs and gets its judgement wrong?
Interesting new trend then following on from the Hore ban length appeal in the AIs - at least Mark Reason (ref. the link I posted up-thread) will be happy.

I see Brian Moore is unhappy - tweeting that judicial processes should be independent, even if they're wrong.

Pete I think this case goes a lot further than the Thompson case, in that matter the IRB were only unhappy with the sentence, in this case they are unhappy with the finding of "Not guilty" which makes it a first in rugby history.

Perhaps Portnoys right, the IRB will keep rehearing the case until someone gives them the verdict that they want. trouble is they must get to a point where they run out of fresh evidence that wasnt available at previous hearings, which must surely form the basis of the granting of a rehearing.

by GloriousEmpire Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:16 am

It's the death of rugby, this pandering to media sentiment and the one eyed ramblings of the lions lynch mob.

Australia should boycott the series and send them all home.

by SecretFly Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:20 am

.................without any supper??? The dratted ruffians!

by aucklandlaurie Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:21 am

GloriousEmpire wrote:It's the death of rugby, this pandering to media sentiment and the one eyed ramblings of the lions lynch mob.

Australia should boycott the series and send them all home.

In shackles on sailing ships with scurvy.

by GloriousEmpire Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:24 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:It's the death of rugby, this pandering to media sentiment and the one eyed ramblings of the lions lynch mob.

Australia should boycott the series and send them all home.

In shackles on sailing ships with scurvy.

With weevil ridden stale ruskets and fetid stagnant water for sustenance. See them with something real to whine about.

For the love of socks, honestly, if the Brits didn't already have enough of a reputation as a bunch of pansy blouses with a penchant for whinging and painting themselves as victims of a global conspiracy.

I honest thought actually winning a game for the first time in what must be decades would make them happy, but apparently it's only weeping into their cornflakes and hiding behind the IRB that keeps their kettles warm. Give me strength.

by PJHolybloke Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:29 am

Ahhh, GE. I've missed you. You half-witted Antipodean chip-shouldering sheep worrier. Hug

by GloriousEmpire Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:30 am

Love to you too PJ, you northern quarter witted badger botherer.

by SecretFly Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:31 am

Do weevils like cornflakes? If do there'll be nothing to cry into on the journey home.

We might want to say Weevill...I mean Horwill.... is maybe innocent now, if yis'd let us stay and finish our winnin' that is????

by PJHolybloke Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:34 am

Seriously, you are the one/eighth wonder of the sub-human world. I've so missed your gloriously ignorant observations of all things fantastic, that I actually felt our game had lost it's sense of humour.

En Garde!

by GloriousEmpire Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:35 am

Honestly. Let's recap the tour so far:

4 years of slowing growing anticipation that reach feverish anxiety in May.
Lions arrive in Oz.
Paper runs articles about how beer is too expensive and the weather is too hot.
Lions whinge because the Wallabies are removed from franchise games and they don't think opposition is good enough to test them.
Lions lose a warm up game and whinge about their injuries.
Lions win the first test as half the Ozzie side is carried off.
Lions whinge about the referee.
Lions whinge about the judiciary
IRB steps in.
Lions whinge about Joubert.
Christ on a bicycle, you'd think they didn't enjoy the game at all. I seriously don't know why anyone bothers. Every single time the whinging overshaddows the rugby. It's like clockwork.

One southern vendor of rugby commentary is even covering the tour so far with these comments:

"
That guy should be banned and anyway the ref was against us.

Did you hear that? I guess the Lions must be playing somewhere. You’ll never find so many martyrs in one place, except when the auld countries come together to whinge with one voice. “And don’t get me started on O’Driscoll,” Matt Dawson tweeted after Horwill’s let-off. Ah, you have to stop before you can start again, Matt.
"

Yep. I rest my case.

by PJHolybloke Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:42 am

Yep, that's absolutely right GE. Just the two things you missed:

The Lions travel halfway round the world and get taken for mugs.
Host Nation bags 50 squillion bucks.

Ahhh, the punitive option would be to cancel the Lions and watch NZ and Aus crawl away and expire under the nearest rock. Who wants to see that? Apart from SA who subsidise the other three years...

by GloriousEmpire Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:47 am

Look, if you lot could foot it with any of the SH sides without mustering your collective forces and emarking on a month long whinge-a-thon, we wouldn't need the Lions. We'd quite gladly see the back of them but then how would Welsh people state their desire to see a team wearing red with an outside chance in the antipodeas?

by PJHolybloke Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:47 am

Whoahhh! Christ on a bicycle?! I missed that Bar Steward... in the name of all things Holy. Seriously? He needed two wheels? Must have been a Kiwi.

by Sponsored content