Horwill cleared to play in the third Test against the Lions

The long awaited verdict is in and Horwill is free to play this weekend.

Let's just hope the IRB don't feel the need for a re trial of the re trial...

"Following a two and a half hour appeal hearing conducted by video conference, and extensive deliberation, Mr Mew concluded that the Judicial Officer had not made any errors of law or principle," an Australian Rugby Union statement read.

"There was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable Judicial Officer could have reached the decision that was made," Mr Mew was quoted in the statement.

"Accordingly, it could not be said that the Judicial Offer was manifestly wrong or that the interests of justice otherwise required his decision be overturned."

Mr Mew also stated that the IRB's appeal had been properly taken in the discharge of its responsibilities to promote and ensure player welfare and to protect the image and the reputation of the game.



Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/james-horwill-irb-judicial-verdict/story-e6frfkp9-1226672834137#ixzz2XqqzuQsS

Lets get on with it

I was always confident that Hampton's decision would be upheld, but now is the period which really concerns me, will the IRB be prepared to let the matter lie or will they try something further?

depends how much they want the Lions (brand)  to win perhaps...?

They'd be admitting their own system is inept though wouldnt they?

Stephen Larkham seems bemused that Horwill has gotten off:

"It seems fairly blatant to me and I can't believe that he got off in the first instance. I can't believe that they got away with their argument that he was unsighted,"

Of course the appeal verdict does not say that Horwill is innocent, just that the original hearing had the right to make the verdict they did.

Having not seen it in close detail, I cannot comment on anything other than people's reactions. Both sides come out pretty bad really. Those baying for blood will be the first to defend their own players, while those (GG GE, AucklandLaurie et al) have in the past screamed blue murder whenever a kiwi is the "victim" yet come across so holier than thou when it is anyone else.

Really? I didnt see it like that London. Good point though...very relevant.

Given that its obvious the guy was innocent as found by the first QC, and the second "Canadian" (actually an English born, England and Welsh lawyer with a house in London who regularly tweets his partisan support) also could t find anything in the shonky review whic seemed based on no new evidence at all, I wonder at Mr Mews assertion that the review was right and proper. "Extraordinary" and "unnecessary" and "Shady" would be phrases that leapt to my mind more easily.

Looking at the one video angle I had access to. it sure looked to me like Horwill was guilty of a stamp. But as of this second verdict, the case is closed. Time to move on.

No need to beat a dead horse. There is a match to be played and we have Rugby to discuss.

LondonTiger wrote:Of course the appeal verdict does not say that Horwill is innocent, just that the original hearing had the right to make the verdict they did.

Having not seen it in close detail, I cannot comment on anything other than people's reactions. Both sides come out pretty bad really. Those baying for blood will be the first to defend their own players, while those (GG GE, AucklandLaurie et al) have in the past screamed blue murder whenever a kiwi is the "victim" yet come across so holier than thou when it is anyone else.

And theres a very good reason for that, we are holier than thou. But you completely miss the basis upon which this frivolous and vexatious appeal was founded.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Of course the appeal verdict does not say that Horwill is innocent, just that the original hearing had the right to make the verdict they did.

Having not seen it in close detail, I cannot comment on anything other than people's reactions. Both sides come out pretty bad really. Those baying for blood will be the first to defend their own players, while those (GG GE, AucklandLaurie et al) have in the past screamed blue murder whenever a kiwi is the "victim" yet come across so holier than thou when it is anyone else.

And theres a very good reason for that, we are holier than thou. But you completely miss the basis upon which this frivolous and vexatious appeal was founded.

Lest we forget the disgusting tackle of 2015, still it took 2 of them lol

doctor_grey wrote:Looking at the one video angle I had access to. it sure looked to me like Horwill was guilty of a stamp.  But as of this second verdict, the case is closed.  Time to move on.  

No need to beat a dead horse.  There is a match to be played and we have Rugby to discuss.

Are you sure you're beating a dead horse? Are you sure you didn't just slip and accidentally catch it whilst trying to regain your balance? Perhaps the IRB could organise an expensive review of your claim by a (cough) "Canadian"

rainbow-warrior wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Of course the appeal verdict does not say that Horwill is innocent, just that the original hearing had the right to make the verdict they did.

Having not seen it in close detail, I cannot comment on anything other than people's reactions. Both sides come out pretty bad really. Those baying for blood will be the first to defend their own players, while those (GG GE, AucklandLaurie et al) have in the past screamed blue murder whenever a kiwi is the "victim" yet come across so holier than thou when it is anyone else.

And theres a very good reason for that, we are holier than thou. But you completely miss the basis upon which this frivolous and vexatious appeal was founded.

Lest we forget the disgusting tackle of 2015, still it took 2 of them lol

Have you looked at a calendar lately?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Of course the appeal verdict does not say that Horwill is innocent, just that the original hearing had the right to make the verdict they did.

Having not seen it in close detail, I cannot comment on anything other than people's reactions. Both sides come out pretty bad really. Those baying for blood will be the first to defend their own players, while those (GG GE, AucklandLaurie et al) have in the past screamed blue murder whenever a kiwi is the "victim" yet come across so holier than thou when it is anyone else.

And theres a very good reason for that, we are holier than thou. But you completely miss the basis upon which this frivolous and vexatious appeal was founded.

Lest we forget the disgusting tackle of 2015, still it took 2 of them lol

 Have you looked at a calendar lately?

They're getting in early for next time - it's like clockwork afterall.

These Time Lords get everywhere!

They have just reviewed the video of the last 10 Wales v New Zealand matches and the panel have upheld the decision that Wales won all the encounters despite the damning video evidence to the contrary.

Doc, if the intentions of the IRB were as much in "the interests of the game of rugby" as they claim then they would have no reason to not disclose the name of the person within the IRB that initiated this little exercise. there are a number of questions that still require answers.

Excellent Article on this matter by Spiro Zavos this morning.

It was very interesting watching all the activity on Mr Mews twitter account for the last few days. Both additions and other activity.

Furthermore if you follow his linked in its not terribly difficult to join up some dots.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Doc, if the intentions of the IRB were as much in "the interests of the game of rugby" as they claim then they would have no reason to not disclose the name of the person within the IRB that initiated this little exercise. there are a number of questions that still require answers.

On that score, I agree. Knowing the IRB, there were probably a few people involved. I had asked the same question at that time the second hearing was announced. Further, I would like to see all those mystery video angles which were mentioned.

GE
I just went over and read the article Spiro has in the Roar, he sums it up perfectly, and goes further to raise question: was the whole appeal process activated from within the Lions camp in Australia??

Laurie,
I think most people, from both sides of the issue, felt there was a reasonable probability the re-appeal came from the Lions management. Many people said it at the time is went public. Spiro didn't raise anything new there.  No proof at this moment, of course.  

Perhaps, considering the Byzantine manner of the IRB we will never know.  And thinking of the Byzantines (and the IRB), anyone who knows the truth has probably already been blinded, had their tongue cut off and were sent to a monastery up in the mountains.

According to Ian Robertson (BBC correspondent and former Lion) most Aussie journos, off the record (ie in the pub while sozzled), believe that Horwill shoudl have been banned.

That article is daft. It suggests the British media are part of some big conspiracy. Ridiculous. They're just a bunch of knobs.

Personally think the other 8 camera angles are key.

Hammer - if the 8 camera angles exist.......
I agree, there was no conspiracy - that's also a silly notion.

I agree with Laurie, though. I would like to know how this was initiated, by whom and what evidence was used. Nothing is clear except that it is finally over (I hope).

LondonTiger wrote:According to Ian Robertson (BBC correspondent and former Lion) most Aussie journos, off the record (ie in the pub while sozzled), believe that Horwill shoudl have been banned.

the only problem with that is, that they werent the ones that heard the submissions and saw all the evidence, Nigel Hampton was.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:According to Ian Robertson (BBC correspondent and former Lion) most Aussie journos, off the record (ie in the pub while sozzled), believe that Horwill shoudl have been banned.

the only problem with that is, that they werent the ones that heard the submissions and saw all the evidence, Nigel Hampton was.

Shock, horror a well paid lawyer gets their clients off on a technicality "I cannot prove that Mr Howill is lying when he says it was an accident" to paraphrase the diciplinary chairman.

When this happens up here and a NH player gets "let off" you are up in outrage. As I said before I have no comment to make on horwill's guilt as I have seen no evidence either way, and frankly I care not whether he is banned or not. Your blatant hypocrisy however is apparent for all to see.

not sure what happened with the formatting there!

fa0019 wrote:The whole thing has backfired massively on the lions. Who authorised this in the IRB?
 
In the 2^nd test Horwill was obviously very emotional and thought it would be his last game, no doubt he played the game like it would be his last ever against a Lions side and was more determined to win, as well as the players wanting to win for their captain.

Now he has been cleared its another shot in the arm for the aussies and another downer for the Lions. Good call whoever in the home nations camp at the IRB ordered a re-examination of the incidence.. if you're australian anyhow! Its those little small things in such a tight series that make the difference between winning and losing.

Fa please stop talking nonsense. You have no clue what the reason for the review was not do you have any evidence that it was a request from a "home nations camp at the IRB ordered a re-examination of the incidence". For all you know it could just be as a result of extra scrutany from the IRB with regards to stamps to the head which would be consistent with their one and only other review, the Thompson case. The result of the review would certainly suggest there is no conspiracy theory here.

As for it backfiring on the Lions Horwill was bound to play well anyway given that they were a test down. I am glad he was exonerated guilty or not because the Lions are good enough to beat Australia with or without Horwill.

Don't quite see how Horwill being allowed to play is a 'downer' for the Lions.

It's not exactly - or at least shouldn't be - a game of trying to match up Lions losses (O'Connell/Warburton) to Wallaby losses. It is one game that has to be played and a game that has to be won - simple.

Well its just coincidence that a mild citing was re-examined (the first in memory, perhaps history of IRB citings) in one of the most important tests of a RWC cycle... and 4 of the 8 tier 1 panel are represented by the home nations.

Do you think AUS had anything to do with it? Or are they meant to be impartial!!!!

Its the right decision I agree but either waythe decision has backfired on the lions massively.

Fly so you think that AUS will be the same quality side without Horwill, their top lock and their captain???

Martin Williams said in the media that if he's out the Lions have a chance.... i.e. if he's in we're toast.

aucklandlaurie wrote: I was always confident that Hampton's decision would be upheld, but now is the period which really concerns me, will the IRB be prepared to let the matter lie or will they try something further?

I hear they're planning an all out Nuclear strike now ...to clear the air.

fa0019 wrote:Fly so you think that AUS will be the same quality side without Horwill, their top lock and their captain???

Martin Williams said in the media that if he's out the Lions have a chance.... i.e. if he's in we're toast.

I say if the Lions want to win a series against a tiddlywinks side then they shouldn't have chosen Australia as host, fa0019.  

Play what's in front of you - Australia - that's the carrot the Lions thrive on, that's its purpose, to play the top three sides.  Why wish Horwill gone to make the job easier and then crow about the series win into eternity as though he was on the side all along?

If the Lions want to win the series by beating sides shorn of their best players then they should keep to playing against midweek club sides.

Do you understand what my point is?  It's not about Horwill's guilt or innocence (I have my view on what I saw and it won't be changing for any citing guy's judgement) it's about playing well enough to win a tough test.  Lions haven't done that yet for two games.  Third time lucky?

fa0019 wrote:Well its just coincidence that a mild citing was re-examined (the first in memory, perhaps history of IRB citings) in one of the most important tests of a RWC cycle... and 4 of the 8 tier 1 panel are represented by the home nations.

Do you think AUS had anything to do with it? Or are they meant to be impartial!!!!

Its the right decision I agree but either waythe decision has backfired on the lions massively.

Like I said the IRB have reviewed stampings before. Adam Thompson's stamp on the head of Strokosh for example. As a Scot you'll remember that one. Is it also a coincidence that both reviews related to a stamp on the head?

Why are you suggesting that the Lions are somehow responsible for the review when there is zero evidence to support this view? I sincerly hope the Lions players and management are not so weak minded to somehow think that because Horwill is now free to play Australia will now have some huge intangile mental advantage. If I was Drico I wouldnt care less, in fact Id be delighted because I would have so much belief that i would have prepared to face Australia with Horwill and prepared to win.

I read an article written by Retif Goosen's caddy after he won the US Masters. He said that Goosen before he hit any shot prepared mentally in his head for the worst possible outcome, bunker, trees, out of bounds so that he was ready to bounce back. True champions will adapt to face whatever is put in front of them.

fa0019 wrote:Fly so you think that AUS will be the same quality side without Horwill, their top lock and their captain???

Martin Williams said in the media that if he's out the Lions have a chance.... i.e. if he's in we're toast.

Horwill must rate much higher than Warburton then...With Horwill out its a Lions gain, with Warburton out it also seems to be a Lions gain as no ones lamenting his loss from what I can see, but rather salivating over who should come in!

Obviously the wrong man for the original job on that basis.

No Taylorman its more a case that Australia have very few back up leaders nor back up locks whereas the Lions have a very good back up 7 and a guy with 80 test caps as captain in reserve.

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Well its just coincidence that a mild citing was re-examined (the first in memory, perhaps history of IRB citings) in one of the most important tests of a RWC cycle... and 4 of the 8 tier 1 panel are represented by the home nations.

Do you think AUS had anything to do with it? Or are they meant to be impartial!!!!

Its the right decision I agree but either waythe decision has backfired on the lions massively.

Like I said the IRB have reviewed stampings before. Adam Thompson's stamp on the head of Strokosh for example. As a Scot you'll remember that one. Is it also a coincidence that both reviews related to a stamp on the head?

Why are you suggesting that the Lions are somehow responsible for the review when there is zero evidence to support this view? I sincerly hope the Lions players and management are not so weak minded to somehow think that because Horwill is now free to play Australia will now have some huge intangile mental advantage. If I was Drico I wouldnt care less, in fact Id be delighted because I would have so much belief that i would have prepared to face Australia with Horwill.

I read an article written by Retif Goosen's caddy after he won the US Masters. He said that Goosen before he hit any shot prepared mentally in his head for the worst possible outcome, bunker, trees, out of bounds so that he was ready to bounce back. True champions will adapt to face whatever is put in front of them.

Guns I don't recall Thompson's stamp being re-reviewed after the initial stamp citing was thrown out, was that so??? I do remember Strokosch saying he had no problems with Thompson though and didn't care for a ban/citing. The 1 week ban was ineffective anyhow given he probably wouldn't have made the team vs. England I think??? Appealing a decision (by side hit with citing ban is different to the IRB intervening).

The reason why I think the home nations pressurised the IRB is that I've never seen it a re-citing before (or at least remembered one) and can't see a reason why they would insist on a re-citing for someting which only resulted in a few stitches... perhaps if it was a serious injury but not a mild offence. We see events like that in every game played from junior rugby all the way up to pro rugby.

Sounds convincing..if you think of it like that. Still looks to me like they won't miss him...and I think theyll be proved right, Warburtons been so so, as have most of the Lions, and the W's for that matter. take the emotion away and the second test was just plain horrible. Really ugly all round.

Thankfully the series is still up for grabs and we can't get a worse game than last week. Hopefully the 3rd is more like the first-that had everything. And more.

fa0019 wrote:Guns I don't recall Thompson's stamp being re-reviewed after the initial stamp citing was thrown out, was that so??? I do remember Strokosch saying he had no problems with Thompson though and didn't care for a ban/citing. The 1 week ban was ineffective anyhow given he probably wouldn't have made the team vs. England I think??? Appealing a decision (by side hit with citing ban is different to the IRB intervening).

Yes it was. The IRB reviewed the initial decision and increased the ban by a week.

fa0019 wrote:
The reason why I think the home nations pressurised the IRB is that I've never seen it a re-citing before (or at least remembered one) and can't see a reason why they would insist on a re-citing for someting which only resulted in a few stitches... perhaps if it was a serious injury but not a mild offence. We see events like that in every game played from junior rugby all the way up to pro rugby.

Im not saying that I agree with reviewing the decision I do though disagree that the Lions had anything to do with it. I though the first decision was correct even though I suspect Horwill knew what he was doing. The Lions management have already confirmed they had nothing to do with the review so I see no reason to suspect they are responsible for any review.

Im guessing the IRB stepped in because A they are trying to clean up the game particularly re head stampings and B they wanted to ensure a clean series. The last few series have too much focus on contraversy. '09 Burger, '05 Mealumaga, '01 McRae.

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Well its just coincidence that a mild citing was re-examined (the first in memory, perhaps history of IRB citings) in one of the most important tests of a RWC cycle... and 4 of the 8 tier 1 panel are represented by the home nations.

Do you think AUS had anything to do with it? Or are they meant to be impartial!!!!

Its the right decision I agree but either waythe decision has backfired on the lions massively.

Like I said the IRB have reviewed stampings before. Adam Thompson's stamp on the head of Strokosh for example. As a Scot you'll remember that one. Is it also a coincidence that both reviews related to a stamp on the head?

Why are you suggesting that the Lions are somehow responsible for the review when there is zero evidence to support this view? I sincerly hope the Lions players and management are so weak minded to somehow think that because Horwill is now free to play Australia will now have some huge intangile mental advantage. If I was Drico I wouldnt care less, in fact Id be delighted because I would have so much belief that i would have prepared to face Australia with Horwill.

I read an article written by Retif Goosen's caddy after he won the US Masters. He said that Goosen before he hit any shot prepared mentally in his head for the worst possible outcome, bunker, trees, out of bounds so that he was ready to bounce back. True champions will adapt to face whatever is put in front of them.

Spot on

Agree with Fly and Guns. There was more than a good chance that Aussie captain would play and we as a team effort will have put plans in place to attempt to negate Horwills' presence.

We want to win (or lose) the match, the tests, the series against the best available at that time.

We don't want shallow victories.

Four nations standing as one (ok 3 nations and an obligatory Scot grrrrrrr), we will not shirk or cower in the face of insurmountable odds, we will stand our ground now, we will draw the line at this point: you will not pass YOU WILL NOT PASS , we will stand proud and tall in the face of our enemies, feel our rumbling wrath for it is mighty, listen to our victory dance, hear our call, HEAR OUR CALL, HEAR OUR GATLANDBALL (lite)..............

WE ARE L-I-O-N-S  

(pass me that toilet roll)

I don't suspect lions management but I do think they made informal complaints that their IRB representatives probably conveyed in their own ways.

Warburton was the captain of a side that just about scrapped a game.  
Horwill was the captain of a side that just about scrapped a game.

As Taylorman says, one of those sides might explode into glorious true-life during the third game and destroy the opposition, but on the evidence of what I've seen from both sides so far, I genuinely couldn't predict which it will be.  

They've been knocking themselves into parity for the two games so far...and for all Australia's slicker play and more attacking sensibilities, it's still been pretty impotent in real terms.  
So many will have them a favourites (coz they look more rugbyish ) but in truth, on evidence so far, it still looks like it'll be another puff/pant game with one or two low scroing points deciding it

Taylorman wrote:Sounds convincing..if you think of it like that. Still looks to me like they won't miss him...and I think theyll be proved right, Warburtons been so so, as have most of the Lions, and the W's for that matter. take the emotion away and the second test was just plain horrible. Really ugly all round.

Thankfully the series is still up for grabs and we can't get a worse game than last week. Hopefully the 3rd is more like the first-that had everything. And more.

Warburton was one of the best players on the pitch on Saturday so cant agree with the so-so comment. He will be missed but he is not irreplacable. I agree though that it was a poor match. There was much better rugby in the last series. It seems that all players are so afraid of making mistakes they are unwilling to try anything.

Gatland's tactics are also particularly ugly too.

The Folau North matchup has been the most intruiging- two juggernauts going at it...both having top first tests and not giving an inch in the second, the lift then rollover one of the highlights of the scond.

Thats the sort of contest that makes a real test stand out. Appreciate the battle up front was another but not an area I know a lot about through sheer ignorance...

Yeah Folau North head to head has been the highlight alright. The Folau backpack moment one for the highlights reel for years to come. Love it.

fa0019 wrote:Well its just coincidence that a mild citing was re-examined (the first in memory, perhaps history of IRB citings) in one of the most important tests of a RWC cycle.

How on earth is it a coincidence? The IRB only just changed the law to allow them the right of appeal. The reason it's the first in memory is that it wasn't possible for the IRB to appeal before last year. Australia should know all about this because Robbie Deans and Al Baxter were on the committee which approved the changes. Deans was one of only three coaches on it.

Never saw a player trying to run in a try by taking the ball and player with him. It would have been less weight to carry had North just taken the ball

The last time I laughed at a player and ball moment was Healy scoring a try against (I think) France?... it was on the line and he just had to ground it. Unfortunate thing was it had a French guy holding onto it too, so he grounded both of them.

Rugby Fan wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Well its just coincidence that a mild citing was re-examined (the first in memory, perhaps history of IRB citings) in one of the most important tests of a RWC cycle.

How on earth is it a coincidence? The IRB only just changed the law to allow them the right of appeal. The reason it's the first in memory is that it wasn't possible for the IRB to appeal before last year.  Australia should know all about this because Robbie Deans and Al Baxter were on the committee which approved the changes. Deans was one of only three coaches on it.

Now there's a fine bit of argument ending research!