Horwill cleared to play in the third Test against the Lions

First topic message reminder :

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...

Rugby Fan wrote:
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.

Indeed. We all know that a banned player can appeal if they think the punishment is too harsh, and in many cases players appealing have had a ban reduced or decision overturned (which confirms that the original decisions aren't always right). Why shouldn't the other side be able to appeal if they dispute the decision? I'd also add that a foot to the face is never a mild citing, whatever conclusion the panel come to it is always something that merits serious consideration.

Big wrote:...We all know that a banned player can appeal if they think the punishment is too harsh, and in many cases players appealing have had a ban reduced or decision overturned (which confirms that the original decisions aren't always right).  Why shouldn't the other side be able to appeal if they dispute the decision?

It's not that "the other side" get's an appeal. It's the hosts, tournament organizers or IRB who can now appeal a decision. See 17.22

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/19/120531gfirbhandbook2012freg17eng.pdf

Thing is this IRB appeal process exists because of all media Poopie that occurs when a player appears to 'get off' lightly. I believe the change was triggered by Rougerie (sp?) getting off with gouging in the WC final because he hadn't been cited in time.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Big wrote:...We all know that a banned player can appeal if they think the punishment is too harsh, and in many cases players appealing have had a ban reduced or decision overturned (which confirms that the original decisions aren't always right).  Why shouldn't the other side be able to appeal if they dispute the decision?

It's not that "the other side" get's an appeal. It's the hosts, tournament organizers or IRB who can now appeal a decision. See 17.22

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/19/120531gfirbhandbook2012freg17eng.pdf

But in a sense they are the other side as they appoint the citing officer who refers the case and run the prosection. The other team can ask them to look at something (and I'm assuming that applies with appeals as well), but it's up to them what they do and don't cite/appeal.

Big wrote:..The other team can ask them to look at something (and I'm assuming that applies with appeals as well), but it's up to them what they do and don't cite/appeal.

It seems the other team - in this case the Lions - play no role in an appeal. The IRB has just published Mew's report and he spends some time outlining how the appeal came about and what problems the IRB had with the Judicial Officer's initial decision.

If you've got the time, it makes for interesting reading:

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/tournament/home/02/06/84/12/jameshorwill-decisiononappeal.pdf

This is one of the reasons the IRB reviewed the decision. They dispute the original finding that:

The Player did not see and could not see, nor was he aware of, Alun-Wyn Jones’ head on the ground as he brought his right foot to the ground (again, while the IRB does not say affirmatively that the Player could see where Mr. Jones’ head was, it says that the evidence was such that the JO should have found that the Player was either aware, or should have been aware, that Mr Jones was on the ground to the player’s immediate left).

oh and just to add, the lions didn't ask the irb to intervene either according to the team manager. apparently they were as surprised as everyone else.

nathan wrote:oh and just to add, the lions didn't ask the irb to intervene either according to the team manager.

There's no procedure for them to do so. Of course, that won't stop conspiracy theorists down under from blaming the Lions.

SecretFly wrote:

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.  

 

It wouldn't surprise me if they had more plans a-foot to disrupt the Wallabies preparations.

I'm just listening to Andy Irvine still going on about it... and on and on and on...
Oh, do shut up! Move on please!

Shouldn't you be out on a paddle board amongst the dolphins at Noosa with the rest of the squad?

Linebreaker wrote:....I'm just listening to Andy Irvine still going on about it... and on and on and on...
Oh, do shut up! Move on please!

Irvine has hardly gone on about it. He was asked a question and said the squad wanted to move on - just as you apparently want. Meanwhile, the Australian press seems as unwilling to let it go as their counterparts in the north. I assume you are also disappointed that Horwill continues to speak about the affair rather than "moving on".

Move on everyone! That includes us!

...and that's my very last comment on this overly drawn out Horwill episode!

.... until tomorrow.....

GunsGerms wrote:This is one of the reasons the IRB reviewed the decision. They dispute the original finding that:

The Player did not see and could not see, nor was he aware of, Alun-Wyn Jones’ head on the ground as he brought his right foot to the ground (again, while the IRB does not say affirmatively that the Player could see where Mr. Jones’ head was, it says that the evidence was such that the JO should have found that the Player was either aware, or should have been aware, that Mr Jones was on the ground to the player’s immediate left).

In many respects the appeal process was easier for Horwill to get through than the original process. In an appeal the new JO doesn't opine whether Horwill should be rubbed out based on the evidence at hand. That is, it is not a "first instance" or original review. What he has to consider is one question: whether any JO could have reached the decision that the original JO reached. . It's not whether any reasonable JO should have reached the decision. The JO effectively said it is possible that a JO could have reached the decision. Now, many or even the overwhelming majority of JO's may not have reached that decision, but as long as it possible for any JO to reach that decision, then the appeal fails.

No appeal would succeed on that basis.

"We are not here to decide whether the tribunals made the right decision, but whether they made a decision at all. If they did, no matter how wrong, then that decision must stand"

Kafka couldn't dream it up...

Rugby Fan wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:....I'm just listening to Andy Irvine still going on about it... and on and on and on...
Oh, do shut up! Move on please!

Irvine has hardly gone on about it. He was asked a question and said the squad wanted to move on - just as you apparently want. Meanwhile, the Australian press seems as unwilling to let it go as their counterparts in the north. I assume you are also disappointed that Horwill continues to speak about the affair rather than "moving on".

Horwill and Deans were more interested in getting back to training. They kept it short. However, it seems like your management still has some grudge to bear with the silly comments to the media every few hours. I'm amazed at that approach actually. Bad karma...

Oh well, whatever floats their paddle boards.  

Rob B wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:This is one of the reasons the IRB reviewed the decision. They dispute the original finding that:

The Player did not see and could not see, nor was he aware of, Alun-Wyn Jones’ head on the ground as he brought his right foot to the ground (again, while the IRB does not say affirmatively that the Player could see where Mr. Jones’ head was, it says that the evidence was such that the JO should have found that the Player was either aware, or should have been aware, that Mr Jones was on the ground to the player’s immediate left).

In many respects the appeal process was easier for Horwill to get through than the original process. In an appeal the new JO doesn't opine whether Horwill should be rubbed out based on the evidence at hand. That is, it is not a "first instance" or original review. What he has to consider is one question: whether any JO could have reached the decision that the original JO reached. . It's not whether any reasonable JO should have reached the decision. The JO effectively said it is possible that a JO could have reached the decision. Now, many or even the overwhelming majority of JO's may not have reached that decision, but as long as it possible for any JO to reach that decision, then the appeal fails.

Actually they did look at whether a "reasonable" JO could react the conclusion. If Mawes had found that the evidence didn't suggest it could be accidental he would have ruled so.

How on earth could the IRB question that part of the decision? From guys who had seen NINE camera angles. From just the one we saw on TV it's obvious he couldn't see the guy.

I think you are making the mistake of confusing the purported reason with the actual reason.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Rob B wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:This is one of the reasons the IRB reviewed the decision. They dispute the original finding that:

The Player did not see and could not see, nor was he aware of, Alun-Wyn Jones’ head on the ground as he brought his right foot to the ground (again, while the IRB does not say affirmatively that the Player could see where Mr. Jones’ head was, it says that the evidence was such that the JO should have found that the Player was either aware, or should have been aware, that Mr Jones was on the ground to the player’s immediate left).

In many respects the appeal process was easier for Horwill to get through than the original process. In an appeal the new JO doesn't opine whether Horwill should be rubbed out based on the evidence at hand. That is, it is not a "first instance" or original review. What he has to consider is one question: whether any JO could have reached the decision that the original JO reached. . It's not whether any reasonable JO should have reached the decision. The JO effectively said it is possible that a JO could have reached the decision. Now, many or even the overwhelming majority of JO's may not have reached that decision, but as long as it possible for any JO to reach that decision, then the appeal fails.

Actually they did look at whether a "reasonable" JO could react the conclusion. If Mawes had found that the evidence didn't suggest it could be accidental he would have ruled so.

Seems the focus was on whether decision was manifestly unreasonable. A very high standard for the appeal to be upheld.

Independent appeal officer Graeme Mew found that only a major error during the original hearing would warrant the judgment being overturned and stressed there was sufficient evidence to reach the “not guilty” verdict.

For the appeal to succeed the IRB would have to establish that there was some misapprehension of law or principle by the judicial officer or that his decision was so clearly wrong or manifestly unreasonable that no judicial officer could have reached the conclusion that he did,’’ Mew noted in his judgement.



‘‘Accordingly, it could not be said that the judicial officer was manifestly wrong or that the interests of justice otherwise required his decision be overturned.’’

I think the Aussies should wear justice for Horwill armbands anyway.

Linebreaker wrote:...Horwill and Deans were more interested in getting back to training. They kept it short. However, it seems like your management still has some grudge to bear with the silly comments to the media every few hours. I'm amazed at that approach actually.) 

The Lions have said far less about the Horwill case than the Australian camp.

GloriousEmpire wrote:How on earth could the IRB question that part of the decision?

Read the judgement and you'll see their reasons.

The original JO spent some time referring to the regulations regarding the ruck. Since Horwill never claimed to be rucking, it looked like he might have applied the wrong law. Mew accepted that the JO did appear to go off piste with his comments on that point, but decided that they didn't affect his final judgement.

The JO also appeared to reframe what constitutes reasonable doubt. Again, Mew gives him a pass but his comments indicate that not every JO would see it the same way.

Ultimately, he concluded that the IRB had good reasons for the appeal - he did not recommend awarding costs to Horwill - but the bar for success was set high and there weren't sufficient grounds to uphold it.