IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

by PJHolybloke Thu 27 Jun 2013, 11:53 pm

Here it is so far: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/23082569

So, here's my question. If the IRB have found reasonable grounds for appealing against the decision to clear Horwill, it stands to reason that they feel he should have been sanctioned, and by definition that would mean at least a one match ban (with discounts for being an all round good egg and being embarrassed by having been previously punched by a Frenchie, leaving possibly the biggest mouse I have ever seen on a rugby pitch HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ_0aRfkasw&feature=player_detailpage), a one match ban which would rule him out of Saturday's Test, prima facie, so why has Deans persisted in keeping him in the starting XV?

Is Australian arrogance the new England arrogance?

Probably not, they've nowhere near the pedigree for starters...

So, here's the deal, all the girls who played at the back can leave and play house with each other now, the rest of us can look at it this way; Horwill did a naughty, naughties have been done to Horwill before, this is Rugby Union.

Horwill has to play a Test match on Saturday knowing, KNOWING, what that will involve. Horwill will start the Test with 7 friends and 8 enemies and whilst the Test match is played, the result will be decided in key quarters, some of them will involve Horwill and parts of his body that he may, or may not, wish to sacrifice. That will be his choice and his choice alone.

Remember this, he is a human (like most of the rest of us), and as such he makes mistakes, he made one recently and nobody died, nobody even cried; so step away from the forwards and put down your indignation, it will get sorted.

If Horwill overcomes all and leads Australia to victory, he will have been worthy, if he does not, he will still be worth so much more than all of the bulls£$tters I've read on this forum put together, that you should prostrate yourselves and recognise that it takes a proper bloke to do what Horwill WILL be doing come Saturday at 11.00 GMT.

Leave it out.

Let's play rugby.

by PJHolybloke Thu 27 Jun 2013, 11:56 pm

By-the-way, "Come on you ferkin' Lions!" Yahoo

by Taffineastbourne Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:00 am

Have you been on the Banks's?

by doctor_grey Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:03 am

I have never heard the IRB contesting a decision previously. Or at least I was never aware of it before. Seems a bit strange to me - the process went through its paces and Horwill got off. Now, I don't agree with that judgement, but it also seems to me that once judged, it would be done and dusted. Guess I learn something new every day.

by aucklandlaurie Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:05 am

Its going to be interesting to see what happens if Horwill gets off at the next hearing as well.

by PJHolybloke Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:07 am

Banks'...? No.

I just get vexed by some of the lynch-mob hysteria that always surrounds events of this nature.

by PJHolybloke Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:10 am

I think it's almost entirely irrelevant what citing commissions clear players of Aukland, they still ahve to turn up and play, and they will always know the truth. Wink

by GloriousEmpire Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:12 am

doctor_grey wrote:I have never heard the IRB contesting a decision previously. Or at least I was never aware of it before. Seems a bit strange to me - the process went through its paces and Horwill got off. Now, I don't agree with that judgement, but it also seems to me that once judged, it would be done and dusted. Guess I learn something new every day.

It happened with one of the All Blacks on the last tour to the NH. I forget which. It always seems to be a SH side who cop it from the IRB. It's almost like they know where their revenue comes from...

by aucklandlaurie Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:15 am

Horwill is one of those guys that will always turn up and play, I was just wondering if he can get suspended for aweek or two at a hearing just prior to the ABs versus Wallabies Rugby Championship games in a couple of months time.

by aucklandlaurie Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:18 am

GloriousEmpire wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:I have never heard the IRB contesting a decision previously. Or at least I was never aware of it before. Seems a bit strange to me - the process went through its paces and Horwill got off. Now, I don't agree with that judgement, but it also seems to me that once judged, it would be done and dusted. Guess I learn something new every day.

It happened with one of the All Blacks on the last tour to the NH. I forget which. It always seems to be a SH side who cop it from the IRB. It's almost like they know where their revenue comes from...

GE
This one is the first time where its the decision that the IRB dont like, In the Adam Thompson case last year it was the sentence, or length of suspension that they didnt like.

Its the same as an Appeal against conviction as opposed to an appeal against sentence.

by GloriousEmpire Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:26 am

All I can say is that if Horwill deliberately stamped on someone, and the guy played another 76 minutes of footy, then Horwill is decidely arse at deliberately stamping on someone.

Perhaps Beale should be banned indefinitely for his actions whilst taking that last penalty shot. If you look at that in slow motion, from the right angle, with the help of the IRB, you can see he didn't really slip, he tried to karate kick Warburton from the halfway line and missed.

by aucklandlaurie Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:29 am

Maybe he was like Kurtley and he had the wrong sprigs/boots on.

by PJHolybloke Fri 28 Jun 2013, 12:44 am

Maybe they were both pished?

by SecretFly Fri 28 Jun 2013, 1:19 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Maybe he was like Kurtley and he had the wrong sprigs/boots on.

Nice one.

Seriously, Horwill had his day in 'court' and the judgement should stand. No need for any more fuss as if Australia win the next test and then have Horwill banned from the third, it will cause silly friction where it's not needed as the games themselves are entertainment enough.

The competition is the fun part, why spoil it now with judgements and retrials and possibly leaving the Aussie's less equipped to fairly fight a third test than they're already claiming to be in some quarters.

by blackcanelion Fri 28 Jun 2013, 2:36 am

SecretFly wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Maybe he was like Kurtley and he had the wrong sprigs/boots on.

Nice one.

Seriously, Horwill had his day in 'court' and the judgement should stand. No need for any more fuss as if Australia win the next test and then have Horwill banned from the third, it will cause silly friction where it's not needed as the games themselves are entertainment enough.

The competition is the fun part, why spoil it now with judgements and retrials and possibly leaving the Aussie's less equipped to fairly fight a third test than they're already claiming to be in some quarters.

Agreed. It smacks of political interference. Personally I think Horwill dodged a bullet. But having said that the process has been followed. The citing officer, unlike the rest of us, gets to see all the evidence and the arguments for and against. I'm not sure the IRB should be the one reviewing a decision like this. It quasi judicial. If there's an appeal is allowed it's probably better if it's one of the teams involved. As it stands at the moment the IRB isn't necessarily objective or unbiased. In appealing it they very clear message, that as the governing body they think the outcome is wrong. It's hard to see that the review isn't going to be influenced. Unfortunately it calls into question the integrity of the IRB. The cost is worse than any benefit that can be gained through a banning of Horwell.

by **Rugby Fan** Fri 28 Jun 2013, 6:59 am

GloriousEmpire wrote:All I can say is that if Horwill deliberately stamped on someone, and the guy played another 76 minutes of footy, then Horwill is decidely arse at deliberately stamping on someone.

Alternatively, you don't understand how committed players can be to playing through pain. Jamie Joseph welcomed Kyran Bracken to international rugby with a stamp on his ankle in the opening minutes of the 1993 Twickenham Test. He played on, but was out of rugby for three months afterwards. Bracken says his ankle was never right again.

by Rob B Fri 28 Jun 2013, 7:15 am

blackcanelion wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Maybe he was like Kurtley and he had the wrong sprigs/boots on.

Nice one.

Seriously, Horwill had his day in 'court' and the judgement should stand. No need for any more fuss as if Australia win the next test and then have Horwill banned from the third, it will cause silly friction where it's not needed as the games themselves are entertainment enough.

The competition is the fun part, why spoil it now with judgements and retrials and possibly leaving the Aussie's less equipped to fairly fight a third test than they're already claiming to be in some quarters.

Agreed. It smacks of political interference. Personally I think Horwill dodged a bullet. But having said that the process has been followed. The citing officer, unlike the rest of us, gets to see all the evidence and the arguments for and against. I'm not sure the IRB should be the one reviewing a decision like this. It quasi judicial. If there's an appeal is allowed it's probably better if it's one of the teams involved. As it stands at the moment the IRB isn't necessarily objective or unbiased. In appealing it they very clear message, that as the governing body they think the outcome is wrong. It's hard to see that the review isn't going to be influenced. Unfortunately it calls into question the integrity of the IRB. The cost is worse than any benefit that can be gained through a banning of Horwell.

A bit ridiculous that the IRB can in effect appeal its own decision. They instigated the appeal effectively because they do not agree with the decision. Message from IRB to new IRB citing officer (from Canada....): "We do not agree with the decion so now you know what decision we want. We want Horwill punished this time."

What chance does Horwill really have on appeal when it is all set up like this? Flawed process and governance in my view. First decision should stand - move on to the next game.

by GloriousEmpire Fri 28 Jun 2013, 7:40 am

Horwill should get Abu Hamza's lawyer. That guy could keep Horwill clean until he retired.

Seriously though I wonder if after the review the IRB will sue themselves for bringing themselves into disrepute.

This is the action of some out of control suit in a boardroom, a million miles from the game, who probably never played the sport who has no information to go on other than a youtube clip and a political agenda...probably some cronies to yield a pound of flesh for. What actual evidence can he have and what puts him in a better place to pass judgement on a judgement by a professional empowered to do the job who had all the evidence and spoke to those involved? It's just ludicrous. I bet the guy is Welsh.

by Glas a du Fri 28 Jun 2013, 7:52 am

PJ wrote: you should prostrate yourselves

by nlpnlp Fri 28 Jun 2013, 9:55 pm

Do you not think that the origianl decision was so obviously wrong - only Horwill knows if he meant to stamp on Jones's face, so unles he says he meant it, we can't find him guilty. Whereas every other court I know says on the balance of probability, I looked at him trapped on the floor, then raised my foot, then stamped down on him. Ergo I am guilty.

Rugby like any other sport needs to encourage parents to let their children play the sport. Letting someone off with stamping on someone's face is not really going to encourage parents to let their littlle children play the game.

Yes we all know rugby is a 'mans game' but that does not mean people should be allowed to delibarately go out and injure an opponent and get away with it. I think there are a lot of people on this board who have never played rugby at a decent level. The ability to injure another player is quite simple - the game relies on the respect of the law/the unwrtitten rules such as you do not ruck another players head - body. back, legs yes, but head, Love sacks, ankles NO.

Horwill stepped over the mark and an inch the other way Jones would have lost his eye. This needs to be stamped on very hard.

by Glas a du Fri 28 Jun 2013, 10:06 pm

so unles he says he meant it, we can't find him guilty

Utter tripe sorry. Intention can be inferred otherwise nobody would ever be found guilty of murder. Granted, the tribunals are very reluctant to do it at the top of the game and that is a disgrace, but there is nothing that says it can't be done.

by RubyGuby Fri 28 Jun 2013, 11:54 pm

I loves it when u gos all legal Glas thumbsup

by GloriousEmpire Sat 29 Jun 2013, 8:23 am

It COULD be I inferred. But it WASN'T in the judiciary - who viewed it from NINE different angles - his many angles have you seen it from?

by Glas a du Sat 29 Jun 2013, 8:28 am

I wasn't talking to you. I was simply correcting the false notion that unless you have an admission of intent, it can not be found, in general terms, where, I note, you agree with me! Very Happy

by aucklandlaurie Sat 29 Jun 2013, 8:48 am

Glas a du wrote:
so unles he says he meant it, we can't find him guilty

Utter tripe sorry. Intention can be inferred otherwise nobody would ever be found guilty of murder. Granted, the tribunals are very reluctant to do it at the top of the game and that is a disgrace, but there is nothing that says it can't be done.

Really? down our way it has to be proven. and that is the burden of the prosecution.

by GloriousEmpire Sat 29 Jun 2013, 11:03 am

Stuart Barnes contentiously claims in the first minute of the coverage that Craig Joubert will be extra harsh on Horwill in the second test because of pressure from the British Media. Is he right? Let's hope the officials are impartial and not swayed by the British press.

by Sponsored content

IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.

Re: IRB have appealed against the decision to clear Horwill.