Oh look, it's Aussie Alucard, tad ironic you would
raise inconsistencies with bannings after
James Horwill was cleared for a stamp to the
face...anyway I thought you were never
posting here again after your last bitch fit.
Hehehe. Oh dear. Redneck has it all wrong once again. Whorewells stomping incident is still before the judiciary and will probably be suspended for the final test. I guess the whole "a dingo stole my baby" defence isn't good enough for the British rugby hierarchy. Ironically the Brits are claiming Whorewells lucky escape is thanks to a SH conspiracy. Goes to show, losers see conspiracies everywhere.
As for Digby, isn't he in jail somewhere?
Digby should get 10 years for wearing a poofta strip like that.
@redsneck,
how is nonu getting 10 weeks logical cos of the precedent set with digby ioane who only got 5 weeks which was only as high as it was cos of his history of spear tackles??? its like u and beeno1 aka storminged are fighting each other to the death and shedding every last drop of blood sweat and tears into being the official undsipiuted julian mamea of the rugby world, o_O
but heres a fact for u, around the same time that ioane was supended, francois hougaraad was suspended for a spear tackle on ebherson and he was only suspended for one game.
the key point regarding digbys suspension which u haven t factored in is that digby had been suspended for spear tackling before, he was given 4 weeks suspension plus an extra week as a deterent.
but IMO i thought that 5 week suspension on digby was harsh, it didnt help that coetzee milked it like a soccer player, but it was released in the official statement regarding the suspension that digbys history is why he got 5 weeks.
so lets break this down now,,,"
digby - 5 weeks
frnacois hougaard - 1 week
nonu - 3 weeks
the real issue IMO is the huge level of inconsistencies with the punishments handed out, it really should be something simple like thats a spear takcle he should be suspneded for such and such, was it intentional or reckless??? does he have priors??? and punish them accordingly and not this on its merits case which sees such a discermency amongst theose above mentioned SANZAR players.
Horwill decision delayed until the morning - see here
Whatever you think about the actual incident, the fact that he is being subjected to double jeopardy is not right.
i agree its rubbish that the IRB feel the need to rule on a ruling already, they should just take over all hearing if thats going to be the case, at this rate tribunals could be more harsh then usual on culprits for fear of being viewd as too lenient, after all no one likes to be over ruled.
my two cents on the matter is it was na accidet, horwill dosent strike me as a dirty player one bit and if u view that incident at full speed it looks like a complete accident which it was and correctly ruled by New Zealand judicial officer Nigel Hampton the first time. i emphasised the NZ connection for redsnecks sake, :o)
Red where are way ahead of you
http://www.sareferees.com/News/why-the-irb/2829938/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
@Sasuke
Please represent the fact cause Hougaardts spear wasn't bad.
This is the report "The footage showed Hougaard lifting the opposing player into the air and dropping him on to the ground. The Cheetahs number 13 fell backwards and twisted on to his right shoulder. He was not injured and continued unaffected. A subsequent report from the Cheetahs confirmed that (as did Mr Swart for the player). "Hougaard immediately acknowledged his wrong. An unusual feature was the involvement of another Cheetahs player, initially supporting the tackled player and then not continuing to do so." "It was submitted, and I accept, that this appears to have inadvertently contributed to Hougaard failing to realise that the player would drop to the ground. In my view this was a brief incident of dangerous play, which resulted in a breach of rule 10.4(j), without any intent to drop the player on to the ground. " Accordingly,
THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART
I find the entry point low end (three weeks). The player immediately accepted responsibility and pleaded guilty. He has no disciplinary record, is of good character and this is his first card of any type I am told. The circumstances of the tackle were unusual and there was no injury or lasting impact on the tackled player. " "In addition, Hougaard has the embarrassment of being sent from the field and the record that comes with that. In all the circumstances therefore I reduced the penalty to one weeks suspension. I emphasise that this was an unusual case and that it should not be regarded as setting any precedent in respect of future tackles of this sort."
@spoony,
"Please represent the fact cause Hougaardts spear wasn't bad.
This is the report "The footage showed Hougaard lifting the opposing player into the air and dropping him on to the ground. The Cheetahs number 13 fell backwards and twisted on to his right shoulder. He was not injured and continued unaffected"
WTF??? o_O
here is a link to the utube footage of hougaards tackle,,,
www.youtube.com/watch
IRB spear tackle law
Law 10.4(j) reads: Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.
A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:
- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)
- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)
- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient
ur arguments are trying to shade the tackle into a grey area and while i agree about the level of impact of the tackle u nicely argeud, the simple rule is this,,,,
did hougaard lift the player from the ground and drop or drive that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground???
the answer, yes. but i agreed with the outcome and for the reason u mentioned.
but IM what should ahve happened was hougaard should then have been suspended for what should be a designated time so that it avoids arguments about discrepencies such as now. u can then bring in the other factors like was the tackle reckless??? was he suspended before for a similar offence??? and then punnish hougaard accordingly. it should really be that easy and not the loly scramble it is at the moment, after all u only need to look at ardie savea who was suspended for a spear tackle during a hurricanes pre season match, he was suspended for 4 weeks by the same dude who cleared horwill hampton who had this to say,,,,
"Hampton said Savea's poor technique contributed to the dangerous nature of the tackle as he lost control, posing potential risk of injury to Pulu's neck or head. He added that Savea was a young player with a clean disciplinary record, and had acknowledged the tackle was poorly executed.
"I deem the tackle to be in the mid-range of seriousness," Hampton said. "Taking into account all the mitigating factors, and this young man's impressive character and conduct through this process, I have decided a sanction of no less than four weeks is appropriate."
i think while there should be some discretion of sorts for the people holding the hearings, there should also be a clear defined guideline, like a spear tackle is a two game ban, if it was intentional then it should get another 4 weeks, was there any priors for similar incidents??? if so another game ban for every incident charged and found guilty with, so if found guilty twice before, then add another two weeks.
if this was the case, then hougaard, nonu and ardie would have been suspended for two games and digby would have been suspended for three games.
bottomline, its irrelevant what the person who was tackled had to say and wethere he was injured or not. adam thomoson put his foot on the back of a scottish players head, he didnt step on it and the player even said it was nothing and spoke in his defence, but when thomo was suspended for one week i thought he was lucky and he had a perfect record up to that point, but the bottomline was he put his foot on anopther players head.
Sasuke stop cherry picking reports. I know the incident pretty well
This is what you left out
An unusual feature was the involvement of another Cheetahs player, initially supporting the tackled player and then not continuing to do so." "It was submitted, and I accept, that this appears to have inadvertently contributed to Hougaard failing to realise that the player would drop to the ground.
You want to have a go have a go at these
Tuilagi cleared
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Rec-_GLsDUA
Flood - Cleared
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aI89HHfNncE
Hayman - 6 weeks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vf2dyKCwgIQ
Afoa 4 - weeks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xGeFZ09gR0M
DIgby - 5 weeks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8tWp9pCUII
Citing and sanction is not a bad thing, thuggary needs to be rooted out. BUT, it is the inconsistent manner in which it is done that smacks of favouritism. There should be standard sanctions and they should be applied throughout. Saying this player is a model citizen and he can get 1 game suspension while the other guy combs his hair funny and his smile looks like a snarl therefore he gets 4 game suspension; this is bullshit.
In one game we have a guy who is a testicle doctor and another who clearly had intent of hurting a player and the walk away with no sanction while in another game (code) the player gets an initial 6 game suspension for acidentally touching the face of another player, the inconsistensy is ludicrous.
"In one sentence, Graeme Mew, the lawyer who oversaw the IRB's appeal of the James Horwill not-guilty verdict, made it clear this case was essentially finished the instant New Zealander (how Ironic redsman) Nigel Hampton, QC, came to his original decision.
Of course the view, already expressed by British and Irish Lions icon Brian O'Driscoll, that Horwill was fortunate to escape sanction in the first instance has merit. The footage of Horwill's foot coming down on Wyn Jones' head does not grow less confronting. Former Wallaby Stephen Larkham admitted 'surprise' that Horwill is free to play this weekend.
The IRB had bowed to pressure from the home unions who had felt they had been egregiously dealt to, again, by a southern hemisphere judicial system.
New Zealanders might argue that Adam Thomson did not get the same protection. Thomson's sanction for a stamp on Scotland's Alasdair Strokosch last November was two weeks. Overturning Horwill's plea would have been a bigger step. It was a can of worms Mew was reluctant to open."
definitely the whole saga shows kiwis manipulating Rugby Justice yet again in their favour LOL!
