the IRB horwill disgrace

[mazolaman]

I like you Ken, even though you are an Aussie.

[Fuzz AI]

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.

Wine critic or whine critic?

[frenchkiwi]

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.

Definitely not a deliberate act.

So strange what the IRB are doing.

I think this exchange sums it up. We all see through prejudiced eyes (except for Ken whose second eye has a Queensland patch on it ) and nothing "wrong" with that just natural.

The independent QC has ruled on the matter, and by definition QC's are God's own representatives on earth, and $hit neutrality and impartiality in favour of whoever pays them the most. (especially when they are kiwis and hence not only Saints but inherently predisposed against both Lions and Wallabies alike which renders them cross-eyed in this matter and unable to see a thing).

Hence let no man questioneth those who God hath appointed above us... except for the IRB, who are by definition above God and want this unquestionably neutral decision to be impartialised again ... as there are some amongst them whose short and curlies are being squeezed over brunch.

Business as usual for the game they play in heaven!

[Jeremy Festa]

Business as usual for the game they play in heaven!

[Ken Gargett]

I think this exchange sums it up. We all see through prejudiced eyes (except for Ken whose second eye has a Queensland patch on it ) and nothing "wrong" with that just natural.

The independent QC has ruled on the matter, and by definition QC's are God's own representatives on earth, and $hit neutrality and impartiality in favour of whoever pays them the most. (especially when they are kiwis and hence not only Saints but inherently predisposed against both Lions and Wallabies alike which renders them cross-eyed in this matter and unable to see a thing).

Hence let no man questioneth those who God hath appointed above us... except for the IRB, who are by definition above God and want this unquestionably neutral decision to be impartialised again ... as there are some amongst them whose short and curlies are being squeezed over brunch.

Business as usual for the game they play in heaven!

you've brought us back to exactly my point. we got sidetracked on whether or not he did it. my original point is exactly that. the IRB ruled on it and they didn't like their own ruling so for the first time in history, they'll have another crack. that is disgraceful.

wayne smith wrote a good piece on the stupidity of it.

as he said, either this bloke in canada is screwed because he is simply their patsy and been told what to decide or if he does genuinely believe an error of law then he'll be seen as their patsy. and if he finds for horwill, the IRB will look like the completely brain damaged gibbering idiots that they are.

and the challenge to this is apparently based on the claim that their kiwi QC erred in law. i'll bet he is really impressed by this. what a joke.

and i reject any suggestion i have a qld patch. i am nothing if not balanced. i have a qld patch on both eyes!

[ARRV]

There is an entitlement to have the appeal run as a hearing de novo - at discretion of appeal officer - per clause 4.3:

• 
  4.3 The Appeal Committee or Appeal Officer shall have the power to order that a de novo hearing in whole or in part be adopted on appeal. A de novo hearing in whole or in part would ordinarily only be appropriate where it is established that it is in the interests of justice that a re-hearing of the case in whole or in part is necessary. In the case of an appeal which proceeds in whole as a de novo hearing the procedure to be adopted, the burden of proof and all evidential and other matters shall proceed as if the hearing was a first instance hearing before a Judicial Committee or Judicial Officer.
  

So if the Canadian bloke wants he can hear it all afresh - ie not have to demonstrate any error and also not have to establish it was in the interests of justice as that qualification is not absolute - so unfettered discretion.

[ARRV]

I assume the Appeal Officer is travelling to Australia for the hearing - if so then the Courts will have jurisdiction to review the decision so I assume that someone has a summons ready for am order inn the nature of certiorari quashing the decision should the outcome not be to the wallabies liking.

There is an attempt at a privative clause in cl 4.15 of the regs but doubt it gets there to prevent judicial review:

• 
  4.15 The decision of the Appeal Committee or Appeal Officer shall be advised to the parties as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the hearing and shall be final and binding on notification to the Union, Player and/or Person. Where it considers it appropriate, the Appeal Committee or Appeal Officer may deliver a short oral decision at the conclusion of the hearing (with its/his reasons to be put in writing and communicated to the parties at a later date) or it/he may reserve its decision.
  

[Ken Gargett]

There is an entitlement to have the appeal run as a hearing de novo - at discretion of appeal officer - per clause 4.3:

• 
  4.3 The Appeal Committee or Appeal Officer shall have the power to order that a de novo hearing in whole or in part be adopted on appeal. A de novo hearing in whole or in part would ordinarily only be appropriate where it is established that it is in the interests of justice that a re-hearing of the case in whole or in part is necessary. In the case of an appeal which proceeds in whole as a de novo hearing the procedure to be adopted, the burden of proof and all evidential and other matters shall proceed as if the hearing was a first instance hearing before a Judicial Committee or Judicial Officer.
  

So if the Canadian bloke wants he can hear it all afresh - ie not have to demonstrate any error and also not have to establish it was in the interests of justice as that qualification is not absolute - so unfettered discretion.

my understanding is that he will review it on the grounds of an error in law. at least that is what he has been told to do by the IRB - so no hinty of conflict of interest or corruption or a set up at all.

[Ken Gargett]

I assume the Appeal Officer is travelling to Australia for the hearing - if so then the Courts will have jurisdiction to review the decision so I assume that someone has a summons ready for am order inn the nature of certiorari quashing the decision should the outcome not be to the wallabies liking.

There is an attempt at a privative clause in cl 4.15 of the regs but doubt it gets there to prevent judicial review:

• 
  4.15 The decision of the Appeal Committee or Appeal Officer shall be advised to the parties as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the hearing and shall be final and binding on notification to the Union, Player and/or Person. Where it considers it appropriate, the Appeal Committee or Appeal Officer may deliver a short oral decision at the conclusion of the hearing (with its/his reasons to be put in writing and communicated to the parties at a later date) or it/he may reserve its decision.
  

no, apparently will be done by phone. after all, last time horwill was able to present evidence and the QC spent four hours looking at various angles. if done by phone, we can dispense with that pesky evidence.

i would very much like them to appeal it to the courts but no chance. from my discussions with other sports where i have asked that very question, they go pale and start mumbling about all sorts of difficulties but what it comes down to is that they fear being so far offside with the governing body that it would hurt in other ways. being offside with the IRB might not be such a bad thing.

[ARRV]

no, apparently will be done by phone. after all, last time horwill was able to present evidence and the QC spent four hours looking at various angles. if done by phone, we can dispense with that pesky evidence.

i would very much like them to appeal it to the courts but no chance. from my discussions with other sports where i have asked that very question, they go pale and start mumbling about all sorts of difficulties but what it comes down to is that they fear being so far offside with the governing body that it would hurt in other ways. being offside with the IRB might not be such a bad thing.

Seriously? By phone?

Talk about a kangaroo court! I guess the upside is that surely he would only hear it by phone if it is an appeal on grounds of error alone - in which case surely he is not lightly going to set aside the original decision. But again, we shall see.

You can imagine the scene now - "bring in the guilty man for hearing"

[Ken Gargett]

Talk about a kangaroo court!

yes, a kangaroo court for a wallaby!

[ARRV]

CLEARED

[frenchkiwi]

"The judicial officer Graeme Mew, who is based in Canada, delivered his decision after more than 12 hours of deliberation following a hearing that lasted more than two hours on Monday."

Thank goodness for that!!

To stamp or not to stamp, that is the complex question before us today... hmmm.... hummm... haarrr

these legal dudes know what to do when charging by the hour

Horwill can count his lucky stars, when the british press and the home counties squeeze the IRB they are rarely denied ... Roll on the Decider!!

[Jeremy Festa]

Stoked.

[Ken Gargett]

JUSTICE.

whether or not one agrees with the first decision, to shaft him like that in a 2nd hearimng would have been truly disgraceful.

and now the IRB look like complete fools.

well done mr mew for retaining your independence and giving this mess a shred of dignity.

[El Presidente]

It's only Tuesday...the IRB can appeal their appeal of the initial IRB judicial decision

and a Canadian to boot......always liked those Canadians

[Ken Gargett]

It's only Tuesday...the IRB can appeal their appeal of the initial IRB judicial decision

and a Canadian to boot......always liked those Canadians

yes, chalk one up to those wonderful sealbashers!! my sister overt here at the moment with her family and just enjoyed canada day up in banff. even went to a parade.

the IRB has said that they will accept their review of their earlier decision but who knows?

[frenchkiwi]

the main thing for the IRB is that they were seen to have done something ...

the Home unions can add this to the list of "dreadful crimes gone unpunished" against their team, and maybe even use it as an excuse if they lose.

(i personally find that holding on to perceptions of injustice and grudges is one of the great joys of being a passionate sports fan)

everybody's happy, well sort of.