Hooper Cited Aus vs Arg

[winchesterref]

Hooper seems to lose his balance after throwing the punch/strike as well which points to quite a significant impact.

Or that the opposing force gave way with considerably less resistance than expected.

Not saying he didn't punch/strike/push anyone or there was/was not enough force, just that unless he admits anything the TV angle is not sufficient to establish facts - I'd use it in my defence if it were me up in the dock.

 

[Pegleg]

Don't you worry about my TV. You're usually so keen that things are worded accurately that I was merely suggesting it is not actually fact, never mind.

I'm keen on people not making up what I say. The Law is clear here 10.4 (a) states: Punching OR Striking. That is fact as is the FACT that the Argentine player WAS struck.

 

[Browner]

I'm keen on people not making up what I say. The Law is clear here 10.4 (a) states: Punching OR Striking. That is fact as is the FACT that the Argentine player WAS struck.

What is clear is ....
[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Punching or striking. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).[/FONT][/LAWS]
.... they didn't mention a hand cuffing :chin:

IMO Hooper slightly 'held back' from delivering full force, whereas Troncon famously didn't after Skinner 'held him' off the ball https://youtu.be/U5XgSYdYgGc

I note Horwill has twittered some advice #TryUnbalanced-GuaranteedEscapeHatchBruv.

Remember Australia, WR issued a warning that they are watching how these pre RWC citing are handled !

 

[chrismtl]

What is clear is ....
[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Punching or striking. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).[/FONT][/LAWS]
.... they didn't mention a hand cuffing :chin:

Reg 17 is pretty clear on striking.

[LAWS]10.4(a) Striking another Player with a hand, arm or fist


LE – 2 weeks

MR – 5 weeks

TE – 8+ weeks[/LAWS]

It doesn't matter if you hit with an open hand or a closed fist. The sanction is the same.

 

[Dickie E]

Reg 17 is pretty clear on striking.

[LAWS]10.4(a) Striking another Player with a hand, arm or fist


LE – 2 weeks

MR – 5 weeks

TE – 8+ weeks[/LAWS]

It doesn't matter if you hit with an open hand or a closed fist. The sanction is the same.

Is pushing the same as striking? If not, what is the difference?

 

[chrismtl]

Is pushing the same as striking? If not, what is the difference?

You may want to check a dictionary for that...

Strike - to hit (someone or something) in a forceful way

Push - to use force to move (someone or something) forward or away from you

In fact, a more detailed definition of push even makes reference to striking...

Push - to move or endeavor to move away or ahead by steady pressure without striking

If you really think that Hooper only pushed the ARG player, then you and I must be watching 2 very different videos.

 

[chbg]

Reg 17 is pretty clear on striking.

It doesn't matter if you hit with an open hand or a closed fist. The sanction is the same.

A flat palm will possibly be considered less grievous than a fist, hence starting at a lesser level tariff.

 

[SimonSmith]

A flat palm will possibly be considered less grievous than a fist, hence starting at a lesser level tariff.

Yes,
​Yes, it will.

 

[Ian_Cook]

If you really think that Hooper only pushed the ARG player, then you and I must be watching 2 very different videos.

I'm watching the same video as you. Its pretty clear that Hooper struck the Argentine player.

 

[The Fat]

Reports that Hooper struck the Argie on the back of the head towards the neck with an open hand and the victim went to ground clutching his face.
If it had been spotted by ref and TMO during the game, likely YC

 

[Dickie E]

Reports that Hooper struck the Argie on the back of the head towards the neck with an open hand and the victim went to ground clutching his face.
If it had been spotted by ref and TMO during the game, likely YC

Yes, a YC for flagrant dive is a fair call

 

[damo]

Or that the opposing force gave way with considerably less resistance than expected.

Not saying he didn't punch/strike/push anyone or there was/was not enough force, just that unless he admits anything the TV angle is not sufficient to establish facts - I'd use it in my defence if it were me up in the dock.

Is that a variation of the Horwill defence?

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Reports that Hooper struck the Argie on the back of the head towards the neck with an open hand and the victim went to ground clutching his face.
If it had been spotted by ref and TMO during the game, likely YC

YC also for holding back a supporting player during a try scoring opportunity before going down like he'd been shot after the slap and then popping back up once he realised the ref wasn't interested in his theatrics?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Hooper has been cited for striking; its the ONLY thing that is relevant. That the Argentine player was holding him will probably be taken into account as provocation, but while I find all the diving, feigning, Hollywood, Oscar winning performances distasteful, in the end, its all so much window dressing and is utterly irrelevant.

 

[Dickie E]

but while I find all the diving, feigning, Hollywood, Oscar winning performances distasteful, in the end, its all so much window dressing and is utterly irrelevant.

Wrong and you're starting to sound like Pegleg (that's not a good thing). Remember this?

[LAWS]h) the effect of the Player’s actions on the victim (for example, extent of injury, removal of victim Player from the game);[/LAWS]

 

[Pegleg]

but while I find all the diving, feigning, Hollywood, Oscar winning performances distasteful, in the end, its all so much window dressing and is utterly irrelevant.

Wrong and you're starting to sound like Pegleg (that's not a good thing). Remember this?

h) the effect of the Player’s actions on the victim (for example, extent of injury, removal of victim Player from the game)

It's irrelevant to whether or not there is a red card and that is what in effect the CO is deciding. The subsequent suspension will be impacted by the Argentine's actions (etc). Which may or may not have been worth a yellow card - other debate for another day. I would hope the DC is competent enough to judge that properly and not be fooled by any dive.

 

[Browner]

Reg 17 is pretty clear on striking.

[LAWS]10.4(a) Striking another Player with a hand, arm or fist


LE – 2 weeks

MR – 5 weeks

TE – 8+ weeks[/LAWS]

It doesn't matter if you hit with an open hand or a closed fist. The sanction is the same.

Well spotted, accepted.

Now that you've pointed that out, the wording of Regulation 17 includes 'anything' else at JO/DC/AO/AC "discretion" which makes this a very very broad mandate indeed !

 

[Browner]

YC also for holding back a supporting player during a try scoring opportunity before going down like he'd been shot after the slap and then popping back up once he realised the ref wasn't interested in his theatrics?

I doubt that the referee wasn't interested, more likely that he & his AR were concentrating on the BC who was close to touch/try scoring.

Presumably the Puma Capt could have asked the referee to look for foul play in the build up to the Try ??? as a bonafide opportunity to get it cancelled & his side a PK.

 

[Dickie E]

If the fact that he struck / punched him is not clear on your TV I suggest a new TV should be on your shoping list.

Here you go, Mr Time To Buy A New Telly:

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/video-proof-hooper-not-guilty-of-punching/

 

[Ian_Cook]

Here you go, Mr Time To Buy A New Telly:

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/video-proof-hooper-not-guilty-of-punching/

You just gotta love that bastion of unbiased rugby reporting, GAGR (for those who are a bit slow, that was "irony") who publish a web page entitled "Video Proof: Hooper not guilty of punching", featuring a video that proves that he did (clarified later in the post).

1 – There is no swinging arm punch past or on the head. In fact, it appears to be a strong push to the top of the back

Actually, it pretty clear that it is NOT a punch, but it IS a strike that lands either squarely on Sanchez's left cheek/jaw/ear area, on on the back left of his head.

- note how Sanchez' head jerks forward and to his right; that is irrefutable proof that the blow struck him on the head. If it was a "strong push" in the back, his head would have whipped backwards. Note also that Sanchez flinches just before the blow struck. This shows he saw it coming; hard to do for a push in the back unless you have eyes in the back of your head..

2 – Hooper’s hand is open before and after he makes contact – there is no fist

That is far from clear in the video

3 – After Sanchez hits the ground he doesn’t grab the top or side of his head where ‘punched’, but the front of his face to milk a penalty – suggesting there was in fact no punch at all

..and of course, this is utterly irrelevant; it doesn't make the punch/strike go away.

Clarification
Even if it wasn't a punch, it was still "striking"; which is treated by WR as being the same as, you guessed it, "punching..."

[LAWS]10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including
the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

10.4(a) Striking another Player with a hand, arm or fist
LE – 2 weeks
MR – 5 weeks
TE – 8+ weeks
52 weeks

This is shaping up to be another "Horwillgate". On that occasion I thought the Aussies were right. In this case, I don't.