Hooper free to play v NZ

After that punch.

https://vine.co/v/egwvhUjiu25

And some people still refuse to believe that the game isn't run by corrupt blazers.

The Argentinian deserved a slap for pulling him back. He then rolls around on the floor like a footballer. He gets skelpt on the back of the head and then holds his face...hmmm.

BTW I don't condone punching!

What has the Argentinian's reaction got to do with things?

Its the action rather than the effect surely ?

Chunky Norwich wrote:What has the Argentinian's reaction got to do with things?

Nothing. Just thought it was ridiculous.

"Hooper will serve his ban in Sydney's Premier Rugby grade competition, having been named among the Manly reserves for the Marlins' Shute Shield quarter-final against Randwick on Saturday. "

How convenient.

joke.
I thought they should have thrown the book at the little bowl movement.

Apparently the judicial officer thought this weekends game was significant given he's fighting for a spot in the Wallabies. Really? Does he honestly believe that Hooper was actually going to play and that even if he had it would have any bearing on his Wallabies chances. He's played in pretty much ecvery test match since he debuted at the start of 2012. He was pretty worn out at the end of the regular season and publicly said so (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/69681873/waratahs-flanker-michael-hooper-admits-heavy-super-rugby-workload-has-taken-its-toll-in-2015). Call me cynical... Even if Nigel Hampton QC is a kiwi.

Here's the ARU's announcement:

http://www.rugby.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/1699/ArticleID/15788/Michael-Hooper-SANZAR-Hearing-Outcome.aspx

Bit of a pisss take

"The Wallabies love it when a plan comes together".

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-union/australia-rugby/michael-hooper-free-to-play-for-wallabies-against-all-blacks-after-oneweek-ban-20150730-gio2uo.html

I think for minor bans (less than a month), they should be specific to the tier of rugby you're playing in. So if you're ban is in international rugby, it applies to international rugby, Club rugby, club rugby and so on.

You still want the option to ban from all competitions for major offences, that necessitate long bans. But this is silly.

Chunky Norwich wrote:"Hooper will serve his ban in Sydney's Premier Rugby grade competition, having been named among the Manly reserves for the Marlins' Shute Shield quarter-final against Randwick on Saturday. "

How convenient.

That's ridiculous.

Poor guy. Hooper wasn't happy with the long wait for a decision and was miffed it took so long. Gregan chirped in by saying he can't believe it took the judiciary so long to think of a way to get Hooper off scot free.

"Well, it's Thursday now so it's been a tough week, to be honest," Hooper said. "It's been tough to have been left in limbo for so long.

"But there's a result there now. I'm happy with it. I can get on with it now and I can put my focus on towards the Bledisloe.

"But this is the first time I've been in this situation, before this having a clean record and so it was all pretty new to me.

"Hence why I was left a bit confused by the overnight wait."

World Cup winner George Gregan dubbed the lag in the Hooper decision a blight on Sanzar, while Wallabies coach Michael Cheika was just glad it was all over.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/70705273/Wallabies-flanker-Michael-Hooper-free-to-face-All-Blacks-in-Sydney

This is common in rugby in every country. Whenever theres a big match coming up, the player will be back just in time for it.


International players get shorter suspensions. I wish someone would keep a record of it.

Must be tough for NZ to be outwitted for once, usually them manipulating the odds.

To be fair, it's more his glib attitude regarding the striking incident. I'm sure he's a great guy but he's good at looking smug. Anyways, will be good to see him play so that the Wallabies can field their strongest team.

ebop wrote:To be fair, it's more his glib attitude regarding the striking incident. I'm sure he's a great guy but he's good at looking smug. Anyways, will be good to see him play so that the Wallabies can field their strongest team.

Really? Coming from a fan of the world's smuggest rugby nation…...must make you guys choke on your afghans.

I actually think we're quite restrained considering. It'd be easy to be a real arrogant knobhead on the back of the ABs success but it's not the NZ way. This is a fact whether you believe it or not. Maybe Hooper only looks smug when he pulls blue steel?

I am so sick of these types of stories, coming from nearly every nation.

This really puts in perspective the moral decisions by Lancaster, he really is one of the few men in the game who is willing to stick to his policy, whereas almost everyone else will weasal a win in whatever way they can!

I bet this won't be the last time this happens prior to the world cup, its a bit of a joke frankly.

As an aside, I think Hooper is one of the most Australian looking blokes I've seen, all that's missing is a VB and a surfboard!

profitius wrote:


International players get shorter suspensions. I wish someone would keep a record of it.

Only certian nations. Ask Pascal Pape, Samson Lee and Gavin Henson.

This is not good. Hooper gets a week for what, potentially, could have broken a jaw. Hartley gets four weeks for something that didn't have the potential to injure anyone.

spaynter wrote:This is not good. Hooper gets a week for what, potentially, could have broken a jaw. Hartley gets four weeks for something that didn't have the potential to injure anyone.

I can only think previous comes into this. As in I hope if Hooper gets caught doing something like this again he gets a proper ban

lostinwales wrote:

spaynter wrote:This is not good. Hooper gets a week for what, potentially, could have broken a jaw. Hartley gets four weeks for something that didn't have the potential to injure anyone.

I can only think previous comes into this. As in I hope if Hooper gets caught doing something like this again he gets a proper ban

Even so, he should miss the Bledisloe at a minimum!

lostinwales wrote:

spaynter wrote:This is not good. Hooper gets a week for what, potentially, could have broken a jaw. Hartley gets four weeks for something that didn't have the potential to injure anyone.

I can only think previous comes into this. As in I hope if Hooper gets caught doing something like this again he gets a proper ban

Maybe. I don't even particularly rate Hartley but very irked that something that had zero potential to cause injury got such a ban. It was unsportsmanlike conduct rather than foul play and should have been a penalty to Sarries from the restart and no more. (and not in the same league as his abuse of Barnes which, rightly, cost him the Lions tour).

Not wishing injury on any of the hookers, but I hope he gets chance.

Classic. The decision is going to be reviewed.

SL is a brave man and I really respect how he dropped some players. He's a better man than many I'd say. Most would 'deal' with the issues 'in house', ie, sweep em under the carpet.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/70741365/Wallabies-flanker-Michael-Hooper-may-miss-first-Bledisloe-test-as-Sanzar-review-ban

And this Nigel Hamptom fool QC should be dropped from the process as I gather he let Horwill off the hook in 2013 for stamping on Alun Wyn Jones' head. It'd be good if Hooper does play though.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jul/31/australia-world-cup-michael-hooper-sanzar-ban-rugby-championship

The truncated Rugby Championship ends next weekend when Australia and New Zealand meet in Sydney to contest the title, but the final week will start on a farcical note with the tournament organisers appealing against a one-match ban imposed on the Wallabies flanker Michael Hooper on the basis it was too lenient, while the player has appealed on the grounds it was too severe.

Couldn't make this up really. It's very confusing to me why they would appeal on the basis of it being too severe... I guess Hooper really did want to play for Manly!

Preposterous notion. He punched an opponent during an international fixture. His ban, therefore, ought to apply to international rugby. What sort of state could WR possibly be in to condone such a lax and irrational penalty?

You also have to wonder what the outcome would have been had it been a lesser known player than Hooper playing for a lesser known team than Australia.

Though in fairness, the Argentine should also have copped a ban for clearly holding off the ball and possibly for football-style playacting on the ground.

Meh - call that a punch? He just pushed him gently away and the Argentine guy fell over. Not even a yellow card.

Unlike this one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O8s5J9yjxg

Knowsit17 wrote:Preposterous notion. He punched an opponent during an international fixture. His ban, therefore, ought to apply to international rugby. What sort of state could WR possibly be in to condone such a lax and irrational penalty?

You also have to wonder what the outcome would have been had it been a lesser known player than Hooper playing for a lesser known team than Australia.

Though in fairness, the Argentine should also have copped a ban for clearly holding off the ball and possibly for football-style playacting on the ground.

I agree with everything but the idea of banning the Argentinian lad, he got smashed in the face, he didn't fake getting smashed in the face, he actually got smashed in the face! And holding back has never been a banning offence, and never will be, holding players off the ball has been a staple of forward play since the dawn of time, reacting with a punch is never acceptable!!!

Fanster wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:Preposterous notion. He punched an opponent during an international fixture. His ban, therefore, ought to apply to international rugby. What sort of state could WR possibly be in to condone such a lax and irrational penalty?

You also have to wonder what the outcome would have been had it been a lesser known player than Hooper playing for a lesser known team than Australia.

Though in fairness, the Argentine should also have copped a ban for clearly holding off the ball and possibly for football-style playacting on the ground.

I agree with everything but the idea of banning the Argentinian lad, he got smashed in the face, he didn't fake getting smashed in the face, he actually got smashed in the face! And holding back has never been a banning offence, and never will be, holding players off the ball has been a staple of forward play since the dawn of time, reacting with a punch is never acceptable!!!

Hooper should have a long ban.  He turned and hit a defenseless opponent right in the kisser.  I don't care if he was being interfered with or not.  Not acceptable at any level.
Give the little codpiece a nice long rest.

doctor_grey wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:Preposterous notion. He punched an opponent during an international fixture. His ban, therefore, ought to apply to international rugby. What sort of state could WR possibly be in to condone such a lax and irrational penalty?

You also have to wonder what the outcome would have been had it been a lesser known player than Hooper playing for a lesser known team than Australia.

Though in fairness, the Argentine should also have copped a ban for clearly holding off the ball and possibly for football-style playacting on the ground.

I agree with everything but the idea of banning the Argentinian lad, he got smashed in the face, he didn't fake getting smashed in the face, he actually got smashed in the face! And holding back has never been a banning offence, and never will be, holding players off the ball has been a staple of forward play since the dawn of time, reacting with a punch is never acceptable!!!

Hooper should have a long ban.  He turned and hit a defenseless opponent right in the kisser.  I don't care if he was being interfered with or not.  Not acceptable at any level.  
Give the little codpiece a nice long rest.

For me it's on par with Hartleys actions, 4 weeks sounds good, given that its a RWC I get that there are some 'ideas' about him not missing it, but at very minimum he has to miss the Bledisloe!

Fanster wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:Preposterous notion. He punched an opponent during an international fixture. His ban, therefore, ought to apply to international rugby. What sort of state could WR possibly be in to condone such a lax and irrational penalty?

You also have to wonder what the outcome would have been had it been a lesser known player than Hooper playing for a lesser known team than Australia.

Though in fairness, the Argentine should also have copped a ban for clearly holding off the ball and possibly for football-style playacting on the ground.

I agree with everything but the idea of banning the Argentinian lad, he got smashed in the face, he didn't fake getting smashed in the face, he actually got smashed in the face! And holding back has never been a banning offence, and never will be, holding players off the ball has been a staple of forward play since the dawn of time, reacting with a punch is never acceptable!!!

Hooper should have a long ban.  He turned and hit a defenseless opponent right in the kisser.  I don't care if he was being interfered with or not.  Not acceptable at any level.  
Give the little codpiece a nice long rest.

For me it's on par with Hartleys actions, 4 weeks sounds good, given that its a RWC I get that there are some 'ideas' about him not missing it, but at very minimum he has to miss the Bledisloe!

Unfortunately, for me as a Saints supporter, Hartley has become the benchmark for many wrong things. In the modern era his behaviours should never surpassed, but the penalties for all should grow ever more severe.

He's free to play. The appeal was rejected. I wont pretend that the decision sits well with me, but time to move on. To be fair I believe Nigel Hamptom is an experienced QC, with experience in similar roles in international sport and international organisations. So it shouldn't be a surprise.

You have to wonder eh. At least Hooper was punished and he served his time honourably. I bet he learnt his lesson and that's the important thing.

blackcanelion wrote:He's free to play. The appeal was rejected. I wont pretend that the decision sits well with me, but time to move on. To be fair I believe Nigel Hamptom is an experienced QC, with experience in similar roles in international sport and international organisations. So it shouldn't be a surprise.

Hoe the feck did that happen? Bad decision.