Horwill Cited

by jelly Sat 22 Jun 2013, 11:21 pm

First topic message reminder :

Horwill has been cited for "stamping or trampling" on AWJ - no idea what time this happened as nobody seemed to notice at the time.

by logie28 Sun 23 Jun 2013, 1:14 pm

GloriousEmpire, you are clutching at straws...no, you are talking complete ballax, have you ever tried to keep your balance by crossing your feet, narrowing your stance? Have you ever stamped your foot down and back to make sure you dont fall over? Actually, your responses can only be from someone wumming, so I'll leave it there. Expect the ban.

by The Great Aukster Sun 23 Jun 2013, 1:31 pm

The evidence is clear - Horwill should be banned until the Autumn. Is Nathan Sharpe due a comeback?

by ChequeredJersey Sun 23 Jun 2013, 1:34 pm

Bet Australia wish Hines hadn't picked Scotland

by SecretFly Sun 23 Jun 2013, 1:40 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:What was the point of that SF? The video shows enough to say it should be cited but not enough for me to jump to condemn Horwill. I've accidentally trodden on and been trodden on players in matches, and all that video shows us is Horwill treading on AWJ's face in a situation where it is completely feasible that it occurred accidentally. Rushing to judgements on what happened without either players' words on the matter or an angle that shows it either in detail or a view lower to the ground or in slow motion is pretty bad whichever way you lean with your judgement

My point was I've seen enough - as the footage shows enough, and it'll be all the citing guys have to go on. But some people never see enough. That's just the way it goes. And that's all I'm pointing out.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 23 Jun 2013, 1:43 pm

It won't be all the citing guys have to go on, just like for tries they have more than the TV angle, they'll have several angles

by SecretFly Sun 23 Jun 2013, 1:49 pm

They'll have what they have and again...some people never have enough evidence and always assume "Oh here we go - whinging".

I don't usually do the citing discussions...they tend to bore me because there is always someone who says they don't see anything - AND - others who claim to see things that can't be seen.

And on this one I was initially saying it doesn't appear much. But on repeated viewings of the blown up gif, I'd seen enough to know it wasn't any accident. The larger videos now up just confirm it.

The citing guys can read it anyway they like, not my concern really. I know I've seen a deliberate stamp. That's good enough for me.

by **George Carlin** Sun 23 Jun 2013, 1:58 pm

The only recent benchmark I can think of for the period of any ban was the 3 weeks that O'Driscoll got for his stamp against Italy. From memory, it didn't look half as bad as this. I wonder if there will be any NH/SH consistency in sanction.

As an aside, my friend from Brisbane says that the chair of the citing committee is a proud Victorian who isn't known for being particularly lenient to Queenslanders and also that Horwill doesn't exactly have a spotless disciplinary record to begin with. Add the inevitable picture of Jazzy Geoff with two stitches above each eye and it's not necessary looking good for our Jimbob.

by Barney McGrew did it Sun 23 Jun 2013, 2:30 pm

He's out. Berk.

by mpc28 Sun 23 Jun 2013, 2:31 pm

He has just been cleared! Thats shocking.

by **George Carlin** Sun 23 Jun 2013, 2:43 pm

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/rugby/wallabies-skipper-james-horwill-cleared-of-stamping-charge-free-to-play-second-test-against-lions/story-fnibc42r-1226668222065

by Guest Sun 23 Jun 2013, 2:45 pm

mpc28 wrote:He has just been cleared! Thats shocking.

It's shocking but not surprising - he's the captain of the home side and the stamping was done quickly. If Alun Wyn had gone off straight away for stitches, it may have been different but he played on until the 71st minute. Horwill's lawyer will have said the injury could have happened anytime up to the 71st minute.

by GLove39 Sun 23 Jun 2013, 2:45 pm

A kangaroo court eh!?

by GloriousEmpire Sun 23 Jun 2013, 2:47 pm

You see... I was right.

Adjust desperate bitter nd unfortunately all too familiar tactics from lions management.

And now the chorus of gullible one eyed fans as predicted...

I really fail to see why, with so many resources, the lions continually feel the need to paint themselves as hard done by underdogs, victims of some conspiracy, its pathetic predictable and invariably leaves a sour taste in what should be a celebration of rugby

by ChequeredJersey Sun 23 Jun 2013, 2:47 pm

I think nobody is arguing that Horwill didn't step on AWJ's face, the question asked by the panel was "was it deliberate/malicious" and their answer was:

"After hearing all the evidence I could not find that when James Horwill's right foot came into glancing contact with Alun Wyn Jones' face, that he Horwill was acting recklessly," Mr Hampton said.

"I found that I could not reject as being implausible or improbable Horwill's explanation that as he was driving forward with his right leg raised he was spun off balance through the impact of Lions players entering the ruck from the opposite side.

"In an endeavour to regain his balance Horwill brought his right leg to the ground unknowing that Alun Wyn Jones' head was in that area, due to having his sight impeded by the presence of Michael Hooper and Tom Croft who were beneath him and over the top of Alun Wyn Jones. "Due to these reasons I cannot uphold the citing."

Whether right or wrong that is their ruling

by ChequeredJersey Sun 23 Jun 2013, 2:48 pm

GLove39 wrote:A kangaroo court eh!?

by HammerofThunor Sun 23 Jun 2013, 2:48 pm

Same guy who cleared Healy of biting

by GloriousEmpire Sun 23 Jun 2013, 2:49 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:I think nobody is arguing that Horwill didn't step on AWJ's face, the question asked by the panel was "was it deliberate/malicious" and their answer was:

"After hearing all the evidence I could not find that when James Horwill's right foot came into glancing contact with Alun Wyn Jones' face,

that he Horwill was acting recklessly," Mr Hampton said.

"I found that I could not reject as being implausible or improbable Horwill's explanation that as he was driving forward with his right leg raised he was spun off balance through the impact of Lions players entering the ruck from the opposite side.

"In an endeavour to regain his balance Horwill brought his right leg to the ground unknowing that Alun Wyn Jones' head was in that area, due to having his sight impeded by the presence of Michael Hooper and Tom Croft who were beneath him and over the top of Alun Wyn Jones. "Due to these reasons I cannot uphold the citing."

Whether right or wrong that is their ruling

Exactly as I called it - apologies welcome Wink

by Guest Sun 23 Jun 2013, 2:54 pm

GLove39 wrote:A kangaroo court eh!?

I don't think so. A kangaroo court would have had him hung, drawn and quartered. This is more along the lines of "one in the eye for whinging Poms"!

by ChequeredJersey Sun 23 Jun 2013, 2:55 pm

I'm not defending Horwill but I can't believe that nobody here has had this happen to them on the field, to the extent that they outright refuse to see it as a possibility. It is also apparent, though far from clear, in the video footage available that Horwill would not have been able to see where his feet were, what with the rest of the ruck in the way, unless he has X-ray vision or Michael Hooper is a ghost. It's a marginal call that both sides will automatically attribute blame to depending on their biases and then refuse to accept the ambiguity present

by GloriousEmpire Sun 23 Jun 2013, 2:56 pm

Or a just and reasonable outcome, heading off yet another malicious attempt to disrupt the home side through moronic accusations by lions management.

Not the first and certainly not the last we will see of that, for sure.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 23 Jun 2013, 2:57 pm

It's not a moronic accusation, GE, it's absolutely fair to make that accusation given what we can see, just as it's absolutely fair to decide that it was accidental

by Guest Sun 23 Jun 2013, 2:58 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:I think nobody is arguing that Horwill didn't step on AWJ's face, the question asked by the panel was "was it deliberate/malicious" and their answer was:

"After hearing all the evidence I could not find that when James Horwill's right foot came into glancing contact with Alun Wyn Jones' face,

that he Horwill was acting recklessly," Mr Hampton said.

"I found that I could not reject as being implausible or improbable Horwill's explanation that as he was driving forward with his right leg raised he was spun off balance through the impact of Lions players entering the ruck from the opposite side.

"In an endeavour to regain his balance Horwill brought his right leg to the ground unknowing that Alun Wyn Jones' head was in that area, due to having his sight impeded by the presence of Michael Hooper and Tom Croft who were beneath him and over the top of Alun Wyn Jones. "Due to these reasons I cannot uphold the citing."

Whether right or wrong that is their ruling

Exactly as I called it - apologies welcome

If all that is exactly as you called it, the citing hearing was unnecessary. They could have just asked you.

by logie28 Sun 23 Jun 2013, 3:05 pm

Decision is a disgrace, simple. But then we've had Nathan Grey, Umaga, Burger incidents in the past, it happens every series. Thankfully there is no lasting injury, so suck it up, use it as motivation and go and win the series.

by SecretFly Sun 23 Jun 2013, 3:15 pm

There you go.
The citing guys didn't see nothing neither, nohow and no ways Wink

Reminds me of GoodLookin' Walsh saying he'd go easy on a player coz of the spirit of the competition during the Barbarian game. Nice of him, the good lad.

You'd have to take pity on Australia too. If they'd lost Horwill, they might as well hoist the white flag and deport the Lions immediately. So, no glasses or contact lenses for this ruling guys..... Wink

Case closed.

by The Great Aukster Sun 23 Jun 2013, 3:16 pm

A good result for Gatland if truth be told. The Lions probably don't want to hear any more Aussie whinging about losing players and will have studied Horwill in the lineout. The Aussie captain will also have lost his edge knowing he won't get the benefit of a CC's doubt a second time.

by gelodge Sun 23 Jun 2013, 3:38 pm

The leg movement looks decidely odd from the footage I've seen, definitely suspicious, but at the same time I can't see how Horwill could have seen what was underfoot, there were a number of bodies in the way and AWJ flops under his feet from a more internal position after Horwill has already put his head down and over the ruck, blocking his view of his feet.

Would be interesting to see footage from another angle, in particular the sideline.

by GloriousEmpire Sun 23 Jun 2013, 3:42 pm

optimist wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:I think nobody is arguing that Horwill didn't step on AWJ's face, the question asked by the panel was "was it deliberate/malicious" and their answer was:

"After hearing all the evidence I could not find that when James Horwill's right foot came into glancing contact with Alun Wyn Jones' face,

that he Horwill was acting recklessly," Mr Hampton said.

"I found that I could not reject as being implausible or improbable Horwill's explanation that as he was driving forward with his

right leg raised he was spun off balance through the impact of Lions players entering the ruck from the opposite side.

"In an endeavour to regain his balance Horwill brought his right leg to the ground unknowing that Alun Wyn Jones' head was in that area, due to having his sight impeded by the presence of Michael Hooper and Tom Croft who were beneath him and over the top of Alun Wyn Jones. "Due to these reasons I cannot uphold the citing."

Whether right or wrong that is their ruling

Exactly as I called it - apologies welcome

If all that is exactly as you called it, the citing hearing was unnecessary. They could have just asked you.

Perhaps they read my post.

by glamorganalun Sun 23 Jun 2013, 3:53 pm

For the sake of the series iit is good and it may minimise any further foul play, I just hope there is no revenge taken out on their captain so we keep all our players on the park.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 23 Jun 2013, 3:56 pm

The best revenge would be a 3-0 victory anyway

by GloriousEmpire Sun 23 Jun 2013, 4:11 pm

Revenge for what? There was no foul play...

by The Saint Sun 23 Jun 2013, 4:30 pm

GLove39 wrote:A kangaroo court eh!?

by The Saint Sun 23 Jun 2013, 4:36 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:Revenge for what? There was no foul play...

Apart from a stamp to the face. Come on if we've all played and put in a naughty stamp on the opposition then you know what Horwill was doing, stamping on AWJ and trying to make it look like nothing happened! Never mind, we'll have to see to him on the pitch. Hug

by Guest Sun 23 Jun 2013, 5:49 pm

The Saint wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:Revenge for what? There was no foul play...

Apart from a stamp to the face. Come on if we've all played and put in a naughty stamp on the opposition then you know what Horwill was doing, stamping on AWJ and trying to make it look like nothing happened! Never mind, we'll have to see to him on the pitch.

According to my dad, who served alongside Australians in Africa in WW2, they knew how to take reprisals in return for enemy misdemeanours. Nothing wrong with that - it was war and scaring the enemy was definitely a good thing from our point of view.

But this isn't war - it's just a rugby test series and it's highly unlikely anyone will die. So I agree - "revenge for what"?

by ronian Sun 23 Jun 2013, 5:54 pm

Quite embarrassing some of the responses on here saying how shocking and disgraceful it is - have
any of you watched it without already deciding he's guilty?
Quite clear that he had no sight of AWJ's head and it was entirely accidental - this is rugby not table tennis, things happen and there was clearly no intent. The chap who is saying this is worse than BOD's v Italy should be sectioned. BOD is not a dirty player but that looked bad on slow mo, this was very innocuous.

by doctor_grey Sun 23 Jun 2013, 6:15 pm

The Saint wrote:
GLove39 wrote:A kangaroo court eh!?

Actually, a kind of 'ugly marsupial' court.

You know, you can't trust critters who are little more evolved than egg-laying mammals.

Was the judge a homey?

by GloriousEmpire Sun 23 Jun 2013, 11:03 pm

Some folks should learn to win gracefully and stop being such a bunch of whining babies. It's embarrassing.

by SecretFly Sun 23 Jun 2013, 11:16 pm

Win gracefully?????????????????????? Waiting behind their goalposts with hands over their eyes as Beale is about to sink them?

Nothing graceful in that win Wink

It was damn close to be embarrassing.

by HammerofThunor Sun 23 Jun 2013, 11:35 pm

doctor_grey wrote:
The Saint wrote:
GLove39 wrote:A kangaroo court eh!?

Actually, a kind of 'ugly marsupial' court.

You know, you can't trust critters who are little more evolved than egg-laying mammals.

Was the judge a homey?

Kiwi

Also James So'oialo was deemed to 'accidentally' grab and squeeze Strauss' testicles.

by whocares Sun 23 Jun 2013, 11:36 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:Some folks should learn to win gracefully and stop being such a bunch of whining babies. It's embarrassing.

You do really like to take the mickey GE Laugh

Coming from you this is real good proper wumming. You have been missed. Keep up the good work

by GloriousEmpire Mon 24 Jun 2013, 8:27 am

Any way. Hopefully now we can look forward to a repeat of that amazing first test next week.

I thought it was one of the best lions tests in a decade at least. With drama down to the last second.

Credit to the Ozzies who under massive disruption held it together until the last - the sign that Horwill did a great job as captain, it's good for the series he will be there again to stamp his authority and class on the match! Lets hope for a narrow wallaby win to fake the series to three tests.

by whocares Mon 24 Jun 2013, 9:00 am

Yep as a neutral I'd like to see australia win the 2nd test as well, with no more injuries for both teams please.

by **LondonTiger** Mon 24 Jun 2013, 9:01 am

GloriousEmpire wrote:
Credit to the Ozzies who under massive disruption held it together until the last - the sign that Horwill did a great job as captain, it's good for the series he will be there again to stamp his authority and class on the match! Lets hope for a narrow wallaby win to fake the series to three tests.

deliberate?

by nathan Mon 24 Jun 2013, 9:08 am

GloriousEmpire wrote:Any way. Hopefully now we can look forward to a repeat of that amazing first test next week.

I thought it was one of the best lions tests in a decade at least. With drama down to the last second.

Credit to the Ozzies who under massive disruption held it together until the last - the sign that Horwill did a great job as captain, it's good for the series he will be there again to stamp his authority and class on the match! Lets hope for a narrow wallaby win to fake the series to three tests.

and there we have it, back to pretending to be English....

by fa0019 Mon 24 Jun 2013, 9:22 am

Didn't look anything, if it caught Jones it was surely accidental as he was blindsided by the ruck and Horwill is not that sort of player. Hard but a gent.

Bit surprised Gatland pushed to review it myself.

by GunsGerms Mon 24 Jun 2013, 9:27 am

Horwill is lucky enough to get away with this. From the angle that I saw however, it is very hard to see if Horwill can actually see AWJ's head so in all probability it was probably an accident. Based on the evidence Ive seen this is the right call.

by nathan Mon 24 Jun 2013, 9:52 am

fa0019 wrote:Didn't look anything, if it caught Jones it was surely accidental as he was blindsided by the ruck and Horwill is not that sort of player. Hard but a gent.

Bit surprised Gatland pushed to review it myself.

Hasn't Horwill already been cited and banned for stamping?

He's not stupid, he would of seen AWJ's body and could of easily worked out where his head was connected!

by aitchw Mon 24 Jun 2013, 9:59 am

Have given up guessing how these things will go though I'm surprised at this one.

by SecretFly Mon 24 Jun 2013, 10:05 am

Hard but a gent?

So is O'Driscoll. He still stamped on someone and had his ban.

Gents can do nasty auld things when the blood is up in war.

by beshocked Mon 24 Jun 2013, 10:24 am

No consistency yet again. Why do the hosts of Lion's tours always seem to get off lightly when doing something that warrants a ban?

Glorious Empire cut out the rubbish please. Lost a lot of respect for NZ when they didn't condemn the disgraceful actions of Umaga and his partner in crime Mealamu.

The Irish get bans when they stamp on players, why can't Aussies get bans too?

Why is the:ghost: still on these forums?

by SecretFly Mon 24 Jun 2013, 10:26 am

beshocked wrote:

Why is the:ghost: still on these forums?

Coz nobody can see him...................

by Sponsored content