Hooper Cited Aus vs Arg

[Ian_Cook]

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

And the relevance if this is?

 

[Dickie E]

And the relevance if this is?

if you're going to take a black & white attitude do it consistently.

 

[The Fat]

Maybe not as clear cut as most think.


Hooper was cited for allegedly punching Argentine five-eighth Nicolas Sanchez in an off-the-ball incident during Saturday's (Sunday AEST) 34-9 win over the Pumas in Mendoza. But after three hours challenging allegations of punching or striking an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee, Hooper had the case adjourned until Thursday night.

The Wallabies vice-captain is desperate to avoid a suspension and be available for Saturday week's Rugby Championship decider against the All Blacks in Sydney.

A cleanskin with an unblemished disciplinary record, Hooper entered the hearing confident of beating the charge - but was left hanging. The hearing was heard by Nigel Hampton QC via video conference and will resume at 4pm AEST on Thursday. SANZAR says no comment from any party will be made until the hearing is complete.

 

[Dickie E]

Maybe not as clear cut as most think.


Hooper was cited for allegedly punching Argentine five-eighth Nicolas Sanchez in an off-the-ball incident during Saturday's (Sunday AEST) 34-9 win over the Pumas in Mendoza. But after three hours challenging allegations of punching or striking an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee, Hooper had the case adjourned until Thursday night.

The Wallabies vice-captain is desperate to avoid a suspension and be available for Saturday week's Rugby Championship decider against the All Blacks in Sydney.

A cleanskin with an unblemished disciplinary record, Hooper entered the hearing confident of beating the charge - but was left hanging. The hearing was heard by Nigel Hampton QC via video conference and will resume at 4pm AEST on Thursday. SANZAR says no comment from any party will be made until the hearing is complete.

Now almost 6pm. Nails are down to quicks.

 

[The Fat]

Hooper suspended for 1 match and so will miss the Manly v Randwick Shute Shield semi-final this weekend.
He will be available to play against the ABs the following week.

 

[damo]

Fair enough on the 1 week suspension (I have been convinced that it wasn't all that bad), but I am a bit dubious about him missing only the club game. I doubt he has played a club game all year. In the Waikato, he would be ineligible to play in a semi-final. Does Sydney not have any such rules regarding eligibility to play in club finals?

 

[The Fat]

Michael Hooper has been suspended for one week after he was found guilty of punching or striking Nicolas Sanchez in the Wallabies' Test against Argentina in Mendoza, but he is free to play for Australia against New Zealand in the first Bledisloe Cup Test in Sydney.

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.

Nigel Hampton QC , the SANZAR judicial officer who heard the hearing noted "evidence was submitted and confirmed in the hearing that Hooper and other players who needed game time would be made available and scheduled to play on the weekend of 1 August 2015 … I was officially advised in written form by all parties that if Hooper was available, he would play in this match. I was also advised that other players were being made available to their clubs which I accepted.


"I found this match could not be considered inconsequential and would have meaningful consequence for Hooper given his current competition and rotation within the Australian squad. The player has a close allegiance to the Manly club who have an important match this weekend and he expressed his desire to play in the match following the Argentina v Australia match. Under Regulation 17, all matches are equal and if a player is scheduled to play, then the match should be included in the suspension if it has meaningful consequence to the player."

Hooper was cited after the 59th-minute incident in Mendoza, and Hampton said he "considered all the evidence before me including a number of videos which showed additional angles of the incident, medical reports for the Argentina fly-half, Nicolas Sanchez, the citing commissioner's report for the incident and submissions made for the player by his legal representative, Anthony Black SC.


"It was submitted on Hooper's behalf that the action he performed was part of an attempt to stop himself being held by Argentina player, Nicolas Sanchez. The action was described as a 'push with an open hand' and not a punch. It was submitted that this action was similar to a fend by a ball carrier attempting to stop himself from being tackled. It was also submitted that the offence could not be made out as a strike because the law specifically lists the offences as the use of a fist, arm or elbow but not an open hand.

Hampton rejected that submission but noted that "video supports Hooper's account of events that he was grabbed intentionally by Sanchez, who maintained contact as he moved behind Hooper, causing him to become unbalanced, rotate around and effectively run backwards. This action was done to prevent Hooper from supporting a team-mate who had the ball and was running towards the goal line. If Hooper was not held in this way, he could have supported his team-mate in a number of ways so that his team could potentially score.

"Hooper tried to extricate himself from the hold when he wasn't released by Sanchez. The actions of Sanchez while deliberate, illegal and an act of considerable provocation, do not allow for retaliation in an illegal way including striking the opponent. Hooper's account and the video support the notion that he did not punch the opponent in the face. However, it matters not where a strike lands on an opponent if there was indeed a strike.

"It was found that Hooper, in circumstances of considerable frustration and in order to try and rid himself of his opponent, drew back his free right arm and, voluntarily using additional momentum over and above that given to him by the actions of his opponent, struck out at the opponent's head and neck area with his open hand, making contact with the back of the opponent's neck and head with considerable, and intentional, force.

Hampton found Hooper guilty of striking, with the offence at lower end entry point that stipulates a two-week suspension.

"I found no aggravating factors to be present but did find a number of mitigating factors including Hooper's good character and repute along with his good disciplinary record. On that basis, the maximum allowed reduction of 50% was given to the Player, reducing the period of suspension to one week."

 

[The Fat]

Fair enough on the 1 week suspension (I have been convinced that it wasn't all that bad), but I am a bit dubious about him missing only the club game. I doubt he has played a club game all year. In the Waikato, he would be ineligible to play in a semi-final. Does Sydney not have any such rules regarding eligibility to play in club finals?

I believe that all NSW players are registered with club rugby teams and are eligible to play for them whenever made available by the Waratahs (and this also obviously extends to the Wallabies).
I have seen many NSW players turning out for their club sides when the Waratahs have missed the Super Rugby finals.

 

[damo]

I believe that all NSW players are registered with club rugby teams and are eligible to play for them whenever made available by the Waratahs (and this also obviously extends to the Wallabies).
I have seen many NSW players turning out for their club sides when the Waratahs have missed the Super Rugby finals.

What are the chances that he would have played for Manly this weekend?

Do you think they were higher or lower than Andrew Hores' chances of playing pre-season rugby in 2013?

 

[Ian_Cook]

So, a Clayton's ban then.

A few points for Dickie to note"

Hooper's account and the video support the notion that he did not punch the opponent in the face. However, it matters not where a strike lands on an opponent if there was indeed a strike.

"It was found that Hooper, in circumstances of considerable frustration and in order to try and rid himself of his opponent, drew back his free right arm and, voluntarily using additional momentum over and above that given to him by the actions of his opponent, struck out at the opponent's head and neck area with his open hand, making contact with the back of the opponent's neck and head with considerable, and intentional, force.

NOTE TO SELF: Drop a line to Shag and suggest that in future he makes all All Blacks available for their Club and ITM Cup sides during bye weeks so they can serve out any bans without losing test match game time.

 

[The Fat]

What are the chances that he would have played for Manly this weekend?

Do you think they were higher or lower than Andrew Hores' chances of playing pre-season rugby in 2013?

Not sure.
Wasn't there a Crusader's player suspended for 1 game and because the Crusaders had the bye the next week, they claimed he was due to be rotated and was listed to play in some lower grade fixture which counted as his 1 match? A prop perhaps???

 

[damo]

Not sure.
Wasn't there a Crusader's player suspended for 1 game and because the Crusaders had the bye the next week, they claimed he was due to be rotated and was listed to play in some lower grade fixture which counted as his 1 match? A prop perhaps???

Owen Franks I believe. Total farce all around. I am amazed at how QC's and other lofty judicial types are so gullible that they take this kind of nonsense at face value.

 

[The Fat]

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.

Agree but it is strange that the wording of the Regulations (hand) doesn't match the wording of the Law (fist)

 

[Ian_Cook]

Agree but it is strange that the wording of the Regulations (hand) doesn't match the wording of the Law (fist)

But if you were surprised about that Fat, I'd be surprised!!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Not sure.
Wasn't there a Crusader's player suspended for 1 game and because the Crusaders had the bye the next week, they claimed he was due to be rotated and was listed to play in some lower grade fixture which counted as his 1 match? A prop perhaps???

Yes, it was Franks; I was against it then, and I'm against this now.

I think bans should be served at the level of the competition in which the citing was made, or above.

 

[OB..]

I think bans should be served at the level of the competition in which the citing was made, or above.

Not always practical. What of an offence during a RWC final. When will any ban be effective?

In this case would it have made sense to allow him to play for Manly despite being banned from playing for Australia the following week?

There are always arguments over which matches count as part of a ban. You just have to rely on the common sense of the panel. Whatever they decide, one faction will cry foul.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Not always practical. What of an offence during a RWC final. When will any ban be effective?

For the next international match? Or a very big fine?

In this case would it have made sense to allow him to play for Manly despite being banned from playing for Australia the following week?

I agree, that could be a solution, so as I said, serve the ban at the same level as the citing.

There are always arguments over which matches count as part of a ban. You just have to rely on the common sense of the panel. Whatever they decide, one faction will cry foul.

He got off lightly, and hastily arranging for him to be selected for some low level club match so that he could avoid being banned for a test match makes a total mockery of the judicial process.

 

[Crucial]

I don't think serving the ban at the same level would work (time gaps between matches, selection could mean it is never served etc)

I do, however get frustrated when I see the judiciary fooled so easily and the punishment they go to great lengths to determine gets served by not sitting on the bench for a low level game he was only named for after the possibility of a ban came into play.

I agree with OB that we should leave it to the common sense of the officials. Except they regularly show that they don't have any.

 

[Dickie E]

First rule for JO: don't make the citing officer look like a prat.

That incident was a YC at best.

 

[OB..]

For the next international match? Or a very big fine?

If a player gets an 8 week ban in the last match of the 6N, he plays regularly for his club over the next year but misses any internationals? That does not sit comfortably with me.

He got off lightly

Maybe, but not relevant to the general principle. He did get a ban and his card has now been marked. That is probably the main impact.

and hastily arranging for him to be selected for some low level club match so that he could avoid being banned for a test match makes a total mockery of the judicial process.

Yes, people are always going to be cynical, and I am not too convinced either. It would be instructive to know how often players do in fact turn out for their club during the internationals.

Supposing he played for Manly and got banned. Would you then allow him to play Super rugby and internationals while serving a club ban?

Perhaps the panel should be allowed to say "if you want that game included, then we will add it to the ban".