Hooper Cited Aus vs Arg

[Dickie E]

In this case, I don't.

And we will all lose sleep over that.

PS: "irony" is when it rains on your wedding day. What you did was be sarcastic which, as we all know, is the lowest form of wit.

 

[Ian_Cook]

PS: "irony" is when it rains on your wedding day. What you did was be sarcastic which, as we all know, is the lowest form of wit.

Geez, I have to teach an Australian English! (now THATS sarcasm!!!)

irony[SUP]1[/SUP]

ˈʌɪrəni/
noun
noun: irony
the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

"that bastion of unbiased rugby reporting, GAGR"


Do I need to explain this further?

 

[Pegleg]

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

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

Thank you the video clearly shows hooper stricking the player. The delicious irony of using proof of guilt to claim innocence. Wonderful!

 

[Pegleg]

PS: "irony" is when it rains on your wedding day.

No that's just bad luck. Because Alanis Morissette clains it to be ironic does not mean it is.

 

[Browner]

The full slo-mo clip in GAGR is IMO a better guide than the prematurely severed clip (cleverly cut by a self proclaimed expert ....deliberately???) that was posted later, as it shows the full follow through aftermath of the contact, which IMO shows this to be more akin to a forceful shove than a punch.

It's the follow through action after the contact by Hooper that is less akin to a bonafide punching action to my eye.

My guess is that the legal defence debate will centre on wrestling with 'when a shove actually becomes a strike' , and the mitigation value of the repeated provocation (x3 tugs ?) of Sanchez & will conclude with no significant ban for MH. :swet:

Nevertheless, he should still be banned until 10/10/15 :sarc:..
... Then he can unleash his pent up frustration against the Taffs ...... Pretty please ! :eng:

 

[Jarrod Burton]

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..."

Then he should get the same punishment as Jannie Du Plessis for this incident - nothing.

 

[galumay]

The full slo-mo clip in GAGR is IMO a better guide than the prematurely severed clip (cleverly cut by a self proclaimed expert ....deliberately???) that was posted later, as it shows the full follow through aftermath of the contact, which IMO shows this to be more akin to a forceful shove than a punch.

It's the follow through action after the contact by Hooper that is less akin to a bonafide punching action to my eye.

My guess is that the legal defence debate will centre on wrestling with 'when a shove actually becomes a strike' , and the mitigation value of the repeated provocation (x3 tugs ?) of Sanchez & will conclude with no significant ban for MH. :swet:

Nevertheless, he should still be banned until 10/10/15 :sarc:..
... Then he can unleash his pent up frustration against the Taffs ...... Pretty please ! :eng:

I cant see them getting Hooper off with the 'shove/fend/push defence, the fact that his arm was in circular motion prior to impact suggests to me it will be deemed striking. Then its simply a matter of how they mitigate for a clean record and how they rate the seriousness in the context of the interaction as to what penalty they apply.

If I had to bet on it, I would expect 2 weeks, but I hope he gets off!

 

[Browner]

Then he should get the same punishment as Jannie Du Plessis for this incident - nothing.

fftopic: Original PK against JdP for his [perceived] 1st offence strike, then reversed for the retaliation :clap:

 

[Ian_Cook]

I cant see them getting Hooper off with the 'shove/fend/push defence, the fact that his arm was in circular motion prior to impact suggests to me it will be deemed striking. Then its simply a matter of how they mitigate for a clean record and how they rate the seriousness in the context of the interaction as to what penalty they apply.

If I had to bet on it, I would expect 2 weeks, but I hope he gets off!

I hope he gets off too, because then Cheika will pick him. If he gets suspended, then Cheika will probably pick Pocock, who I see as a bigger threat.

 

[Browner]

I cant see them getting Hooper off with the 'shove/fend/push defence, the fact that his arm was in circular motion prior to impact suggests to me it will be deemed striking. Then its simply a matter of how they mitigate for a clean record and how they rate the seriousness in the context of the interaction as to what penalty they apply.

If I had to bet on it, I would expect 2 weeks, but I hope he gets off!

Ok, you're on, 1$Aus says less than 2 weeks.

 

[The Fat]

Ok, you're on, 1$Aus says less than 2 weeks.

Yes, I think that if the striking charge sticks, he'll go in at Low End (2 weeks) and then will get a 50% discount for mitigating factors so he will be outed for 1 week.
Still think there is a small chance they will successfully argue it was a push.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Hearing adjourned until Thursday

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...nker-michael-hoopers-sanzar-hearing-adjourned

 

[Pegleg]

I cant see them getting Hooper off with the 'shove/fend/push defence, the fact that his arm was in circular motion prior to impact suggests to me it will be deemed striking. Then its simply a matter of how they mitigate for a clean record and how they rate the seriousness in the context of the interaction as to what penalty they apply.

If I had to bet on it, I would expect 2 weeks, but I hope he gets off!

Sounds like common sense!

 

[Crucial]

I know that the Law itself says 'fist or arm....etc', but those saying that Hooper should get exonerated on the basis that he had an open hand have me confused.
Ask yourself this. If a player was to clearly strike another across the face with an open palm, is that OK? If not, then why is it OK for Hooper to use an open hand to the back of the neck area? It is still striking isn't it?
The fact that this hearing has gone overtime suggests to me that the argument from Hooper's camp is that he technically didn't transgress a poorly written Law. The counter argument would be that the intention of the Law is to cover all striking from hand or arm not just fist or arm, including slapping and backhanding.
The Argie dive is irrelevant to the act and should be treated separately.
Hooper spins around draws his arm back to strike and does strike in a dangerous area. If he aimed to hit the upper back it was reckless because he was very close to the back of the neck.

 

[Dickie E]

Ask yourself this. If a player was to clearly strike another across the face with an open palm, is that OK?

No, it is not OK. But the question is: is an open palm to the back of the head red card worthy?

 

[Crucial]

No, it is not OK. But the question is: is an open palm to the back of the head red card worthy?

There is a specific Law for striking.The intention of that law is to stop players striking each other. Just because it says 'fist or arm' shouldn't mean that an open handed strike (or backhanded strike) is immune to punishment.

As you know, there is nothing in the Laws themselves to define any 'thresholds' for Foul Play and when it moves from penalty to YC to RC. The citing officer must make that call based on what he has as evidence. In this case he can see clearly that Hooper strikes a player and it connects near the head area. Easily meets the requirement for an informed decision to be made.

If the ref had seen it and RC'd him, he wouldn't have had the benefit of close examination at the time but would have been able to argue against further sanction. Whatever the outcome it wasn't an action that should be ignored. Whacking someone near the base of the neck is dangerous.

 

[Ian_Cook]

No, it is not OK. But the question is: is an open palm to the back of the head red card worthy?

Blue 12 strikes Gold 15 across the back of the head with an open hand so hard that it knocks Gold 15 unconscious and he has to be stretchered off.... Citing? RC? Should Gold 15's injury be taken into account when deciding on the suspension?

Blue 12 strikes Gold 15 across the side of the head with an open hand so hard that the pressure ruptures Gold 15's eardrum and he suffers permanent loss of hearing (don't laugh, I know someone who had exactly this happen to them in a rugby match)...Citing? RC? Should Gold 15's injury be taken into account when deciding on the suspension.

 

[Crucial]

Extent of injury will always be taken into account for length of suspension, it is part of their guidelines in setting ban length.
It isn't part of the decision on whether the act meets the RC threshold though (and shouldn't be). The Law is there to remove the act and prevent a possible bad outcome.

My argument on this case is simple. Did Hooper strike another player? Yes. Was it serious enough to warrant further punishment? IMO yes, it had a high risk of injuring the player. Are there mitigating factors? Yes, it was instinctive retaliation and Hooper has an unblemished record so hasn't shown a propensity for violent acts before.

The only tricky part is the usual tangle the judiciary gets in when setting a meaningful punishment. Unless they can get some concrete assurity that he was scheduled to play this weekend for a club side, then any ban should not count that game.

I would think 1 week (being the Bled game) is fair and reasonable punishment, which is a bugger because Pocock is a better player.

 

[RobLev]

No, it is not OK. But the question is: is an open palm to the back of the head red card worthy?

Surely the question is: "Is a palm heel strike to the back of the head red card worthy?" Has Bruce Lee been doing it wrong all these years?

 

[Dickie E]

There is a specific Law for striking.

There is a specific law for stomping. But Beauden Barrett got away with it recently.