the IRB horwill disgrace

[Ken Gargett]

i am truly astonished by the IRB and its dealing with horwill. the most disgraceful thjing i've seen in sport for many years. and yes, for me it shows them as utterly corrupt.

i saw what wayne smith put in the weekend aussie.

"Meanwhile, the International Rugby Board has declined to publicly state the grounds for its appeal against the not guilty verdict delivered by its own judicial officer, Nigel Hampton, in the James Horwill stamping hearing earlier this week. Any media inquiring about the grounds are referred to IRB Regulation 18 Appendix 1, clause 4.5 (a) to (d). It appears the IRB is set to argue at the appeal hearing that Hampton, a New Zealand QC, either didn't get the facts of the case right or erred in law. That effectively is the thrust of 4.5 (a).

The IRB also will argue that the decision to impose no punishment on Horwill for stamping on the head of Lions lock Alun Wyn Jones in the Brisbane Test should be overturned "in the interest of justice" (4.5 () and/or because "the sanction imposed was unduly lenient" (4.5 (d)). The principal flaw in the IRB's position is that merely by appealing against Hampton's ruling and installing a second IRB judicial officer, Canadian Graeme Mew, to conduct the new hearing, the sport's global governing body has effectively has declared it believes Horwill to be guilty - which surely prejudices the whole process."

the IRB will not publicly state the grounds? what is going on? you would not let the kindergarten tuckshop committee get away with that crap but these utterly appalling grubs think they can?

it is going against its own judicial officer - a respected NZ QC. not as though he is an aussie, or likely to favour anything australian.

and not as though horwill is the rugby equivalent of les boyd. as he pointed out, in 130 professional rugby games, he has never been cited for anything nor had to front a judiciary. hardly comes across as a serial violent offender.

i looked up the actual regulations on whjich they apparently purport to rely.

4.5 Except where an appeal proceeds in whole as a de novo hearing it is for the Appellant to

establish that the decision being challenged on appeal:

(a) was in error (either as to central factual findings or in law);

( in the interests of justice should be overturned;

© the sanction imposed was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle; and/or

(d) the sanction imposed was unduly lenient.

a. so they would be suggesting that they, themselves, were wrong. in fact or law. their own QC?

b. justice? these grubs couldn't spell it. they have thrown out any pretence at justice.

c. well no sanction so not really relevant.

d. again, no sanction as the decision was not guilty. so if no sanction, they can hardly claim it too lenient?

do they really think fans are so stupid as to believe this is anything other than a disgraceful and effectively corrupt attempt to influence the game? they should all be sacked.

[str8dog]

Out of my zone here, but sounds like if the league can't/won't police itself, maybe criminal charges should be laid.

[Ken Gargett]

oh i wish but absolutely no chance of that. it would be a bit like criminal charges being laid against the officials of the NFL for docking the skins salary cap, though in this case, far more deserved. just not going to happen.

[westg]

A D grade act from Horwill . Deliberate all day long.! Why wont they comment on it ....because the poms complained against the decision why else.

[Ken Gargett]

A D grade act from Horwill . Deliberate all day long.! Why wont they comment on it ....because the poms complained against the decision why else.

deliberate or not, we'll probably never know but if you watch the video (below), have a look where his head is. how can you possibly see the bloke on the ground when there are several bodies completely blocking the line of sight? and not being able to see, there is no real reason to assume that there would be anyone there - actually, far more likely that if there was someone there, it would have been a fellow wallaby.

and this is a bloke who has never been cited in 130 games - tests and for the reds. it is not as though there has ever been any hint of this in his game (if you trawl through enough videos of rugby games, i'm sure you'd find something but the refs and officials never have).

but not commenting? where is the justice in that? there has been no justice in this at all.

[Jeremy Festa]

Definitely not a deliberate act.

So strange what the IRB are doing.

[westg]

Definitely not a deliberate act.

So strange what the IRB are doing.

He looks at his head and stomps on it. If he did not land that foot on his face he would of tripped over himself. Straight across his own body onto his face . Look again. Furthermore he has admitted it.

[westg]

deliberate or not, we'll probably never know but if you watch the video (below), have a look where his head is. how can you possibly see the bloke on the ground when there are several bodies completely blocking the line of sight? and not being able to see, there is no real reason to assume that there would be anyone there - actually, far more likely that if there was someone there, it would have been a fellow wallaby.

and this is a bloke who has never been cited in 130 games - tests and for the reds. it is not as though there has ever been any hint of this in his game (if you trawl through enough videos of rugby games, i'm sure you'd find something but the refs and officials never have).

but not commenting? where is the justice in that? there has been no justice in this at all.

Because the poms have complained on the decision why else would there be an appeal.His head comes out in line with his foot over the stompees face

[Ken Gargett]

the mere fact we are debating this and there are people on both sides, surely raises doubt?

for mine, we are looking at different things because to me, it is absolutely clear that his head/eyes/vision is/are completely obscured by michael hooper. it is impossible for him to have seen 'the stompee', surely?

in the hearing, they had 9 different video views so far more evidence than just that above (i've no idea if that helps or hinders horwill) and given that they cleared him, you'd have to think that there was nothing in any of them that suggested anything incriminating.

please remember that he was not cleared by an aussie. this is not a home town decision. he was cleared by a kiwi (and anyone in the northern hemisphere thinking that would be to our benefit, imagine a french lawyer ruling on a pom - pretty much the same thing) and it was a QC, who was appointed by the IRB.

one other thing, if i were defending him, not that he needs it, and you made the statement that his foot was over the stompee when his head comes out (first i'd disagree and i think there is plenty of evidence to support that), i'd ask this - you are saying then that his foot was in the air prior to him being able to see 'the stompee'. in other words, you presumably agree that he could not see him at the time he raised his foot (he has argued questions of balance which in a ruck like that are hardly uncommon). so hardly any evidence of intent to raise his foot to stomp if he could not even see someone there when he raised his foot. in other words, his foot was raised for some other reason. any suggestions what that could be other than balance? i can't see any.

again, whether you believe it deliberate or not, there is surely more than sufficient evidence to suggest that his intent is nowhere near the level of 'beyond reasonable doubt' - i don't know the level of proof required but you can bet london to a brick that the QC hearing the case does know and didn't find it.

quite simply, at the very least, there has to be doubt. and if doubt, how the hell do you convict him?

[Jeremy Festa]

True

Also, this is one of those unique incidences where slow-motion footage looks far worse than what actually happened.

There is no way a guy that is over 2 metres tall and weighs 120kgs has ninja-like reaction time to take advantage of a situation where a guys head pops out while his foot is already in the air and he is leaning forward and then think, "I am going to take advantage of this situation by stamping on his face because the ref can't see."

Plus it's not Horwill's style.

Plus it occurred in the 3rd minute. Which I think says quite a bit.

[westg]

My god...look at where he is standing ..his foot crossed his body straight onto the other guy's face. Regardless of what his style is and what he has done previously, that is why you have the rule ....because rugby players on occasion without giving occasion, stomp on peoples heads...if you don't think he meant it fine. It is clear he stomped on his head and it was an absolute D grade act even from him ..Would love to hear some of your opinions even if the two players actions involved where reversed.

[Dara]

As a lions fan, the IRB have no place appealing the decision of the independent commissioner (a kiwi so as ken rightly says, an IRB official not an ARU official). I didn't see the IRB appealing the clearing of Umaga & Mealamu for the spear tackle on O'Driscoll 8 years ago (ok the IRB did change the laws but the clearing of the Kiwis was farcical)!

The IRB clearly want decisions on the side that you don't stamp or ground your foot hard unless you can see that there's nothing under the foot....it puts parents off sending their kids to mini rugby.

Also, please don't class all the Lions as Poms (especially as there's only a handful of them....it's mainly welsh with a few Irish, Poms and Scots!

[Ken Gargett]

he hasn't seen the bloke. he is on the side of a mass of moving humanity weighing close to two tonnes.

to me and many others, it is absolutely clear that he did not stomp on him (yes, made contact but i assume you mean that it was not accidental).

if roles reversed, we wouldn't be having this discussion because after an independent judicial officer found him not guilty, there is no way the IRB would have pursued it.

but if they had, i'd like to think i'd have exactly the same opinion. i certainly believe i would have. i suspect that we'll never agree on this one.

[Ken Gargett]

Also, please don't class all the Lions as Poms (especially as there's only a handful of them....it's mainly welsh with a few Irish, Poms and Scots!

my apols, of course. it is just that as soon as one starts thinking of whingers one naturally gravitates...

possibly why kiwis are sometimes known (affectionately, i'm sure) as south pacific poms.

[Fuzz AI]

As someone who doesn't follow rugby and has no bloody clue about the sport, to me it just looks like he's lost is balance and his foot has crossed over as he's being pushed by the Lions players pushing in from their side. I could be wrong, but it just doesn't look deliberate.

[westg]

As someone who doesn't follow rugby and has no bloody clue about the sport, to me it just looks like he's lost is balance and his foot has crossed over as he's being pushed by the Lions players pushing in from their side. I could be wrong, but it just doesn't look deliberate.

Fuzz. You should be completely sober when you post.

[Fuzz AI]

Mate, I just don't see it being intentional.

[Jefferson]

Hmmm... kinda reminds me of Haynesworth stomping on Gurode.

[Ken Gargett]

Fuzz. You should be completely sober when you post.

what fuzz has said is pretty much what the independent, and presumably sober, QC decided happened.

[westg]

Gee thanks Ken...I was only joking with Fuzz. You I disagree with.

[Ken Gargett]

Gee thanks Ken...I was only joking with Fuzz. You I disagree with.

the problem with that is the eternal problem that if you post on a public forum, for all the world to see, without the benefit of tone etc, people take comments at face value (especially in this case when fuzz has exactly nailed the reasoning behind the decision).

and i have absolutely no problem with anyone disagreeing with me. everyone entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrong it is (please insert appropriate tone etc).

[westg]

Ok when it comes to making jokes about alcohol or being sober I will make sure I take caution in my tone. Just in case you can't get the tone I am joking.

Fuzz I love you man.

[Fuzz AI]

It's all cool, guys. I've made plenty of questionable decisions whilst perfectly sober in the past!

[mazolaman]

my apols, of course. it is just that as soon as one starts thinking of whingers one naturally gravitates...

possibly why kiwis are sometimes known (affectionately, i'm sure) as south pacific poms.

Are you sure you aren"t a "Pom"?

As all I've heard recently is you whinging about the wallabies, cricket, the IRB...

Endless whining from the wine critic.

[Ken Gargett]

Are you sure you aren"t a "Pom"?

As all I've heard recently is you whinging about the wallabies, cricket, the IRB...

Endless whining from the wine critic.

i just like to fit in...