Hooper Cited Aus vs Arg

[Crucial]

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

That incident was a YC at best.

I still don't see how you come to that conclusion apart from bias. Guidelines state that striking has a RC start then look for reasons to downgrade. Considering there was a strike to an area possibly head, possibly neck, possibly recklessly close to being head or neck, I can't see how an on field ref finds room to downgrade.

If you are suggesting that it should have been an off field YC, then the same applies even with benefit of a closer look. The actions of the struck player after the strike are of no concern to the charge at hand. The retaliation factor is also dismissed as not being a valid excuse. Then ask yourself if you would like to be blindsided with a strike to the base of the neck and if you think you were lucky to have escaped injury.

It is clearly a RC situation (maybe an onfield YC, upgraded afterwards) so the need to appear at the judiciary was valid. The decision on punishment and the mitigation was also fairly applied.

I, personally find counting the club game as penalty served a bit of a mockery, but then, I also don't know the fair way around that.

 

[Dickie E]

Sorry, that is a load of horsecock Dickie and you know it. There are numerous occasions where the JO has overturned a CO decision and/or a referee's red card decision.

You are implying that the JO fabricated a story or misrepresented the facts to cover for the CO. That kind of statement is completely inappropriate for someone calling themselves a match official. Calling the JO incompetent is one thing, but accusing them of lying is beyond the pale. Its the equivalent of accusing a referee of cheating; that might be OK at places like Planet Rugby but it has no place on this forum. Its the sort of crap I would expect to hear from prats like Greg Growden, Chris Rattue, Spiro Zavos and their ilk; not from a rugby referee.

I have to wonder whether you actually read Nigel Hampton's judgement, and if you did, whether you understood it. I mean, what part of "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." do you fail to understand.


I really wonder about you sometimes, that you think its OK for a player to smash an opponent in the back of the head.

Refer my post #60.

And I wonder about you ALL the time. All black & white unless a Polynesian Pom is involved.

 

[Crucial]

Refer my post #60.

And I wonder about you ALL the time. All black & white unless a Polynesian Pom is involved.

The CO in that incident decided not to refer it. Maybe he should have, but I don't what on earth that has to do with this incident?

So are you saying that the CO was wrong not to cite Barrett but in the same breath saying that Hooper didn't deserve citing?

Surely they are both one way or the other.

 

[irishref]

so when was he named as a sub for the Manly team?

 

[Pegleg]

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.

RWC is international level. Make the ban at international level. Football, I believe opperates that way. Personally I would Ban a player for a period of time thjat must include potential game time at the players level.

Eg

Player gets a 3 week ban during the 6 nations. There is an "off weekend in the middle of the ban. So the ban extends to the the 3 week of 6n rugby (ie 4 weeks in total). The player plays no rugby at any level until 3 weekends of 6n rugby is completed.

To many bans have lasted through the summer where a 6 week ban has in effect been no ban since the player is not due to play any rugby during the off season. I accept that this has been addressed ,in part, by WR the system is still flawed though.

Also the systen of "time off for good behavior" is a nonsense. A player banned for a Mid level 4 weeks should serve 4 weeks. If he has "previous" then extend the ban. Also no deduction for a "sorry". Again add time if no remorse is "shown".

None of the above is specific to this case. Though I don't think he should play in the next RC game or any game leading up to that.

 

[Pegleg]

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

That incident was a YC at best.

Suggestion of deliberate bias / cheating by an official. Interesting.

 

[TigerCraig]

Had an interesting one like this last season in cricket (not striking thankfully)

I chair a cricket association judiciary panel and we suspended a guy last year for 2 games - which would mean that he would miss the league final.

He then tried to get around it by registering with his old club in England, who were playing a midweek fixture.

Good try , but no cigar

 

[OB..]

RWC is international level. Make the ban at international level. Football, I believe opperates that way. Personally I would Ban a player for a period of time thjat must include potential game time at the players level.

Eg

Player gets a 3 week ban during the 6 nations. There is an "off weekend in the middle of the ban. So the ban extends to the the 3 week of 6n rugby (ie 4 weeks in total). The player plays no rugby at any level until 3 weekends of 6n rugby is completed.

And if he gets the 3 week ban following the last game in the 6N? To serve that at international level in your scheme he misses the first 3 autumn internationals plus any club matches during that time, wheras if the ban followed the first 6N match he would be clear to play again after the end of the 6N. Same sanction, wildly different impact.

To many bans have lasted through the summer where a 6 week ban has in effect been no ban since the player is not due to play any rugby during the off season.

I don't think so. I certainly remember cases where the panel considered which pre-season matches would be allowed to count under the ban.

I have yet to come across a formula that has no defects, because circumstances are so variable.

 

[The Fat]

RWC is international level. Make the ban at international level. Football, I believe opperates that way. Personally I would Ban a player for a period of time thjat must include potential game time at the players level.

Eg

Player gets a 3 week ban during the 6 nations. There is an "off weekend in the middle of the ban. So the ban extends to the the 3 week of 6n rugby (ie 4 weeks in total). The player plays no rugby at any level until 3 weekends of 6n rugby is completed.

.

And if that player was having a shit house game prior to being sent off/cited and was dropped from the team with his file marked "Never to play for England/Wales/Scotland (whoever) again", what then? Your system suggests a life ban.

 

[Dickie E]

Suggestion of deliberate bias / cheating by an official. Interesting.

Not at all. CO's gone half cocked - probably sucked in by the dive. JO has brought some sense to it but can't throw CO under bus. All theory of course but a sensible outcome. IMO

 

[Ian_Cook]

And if that player was having a shit house game prior to being sent off/cited and was dropped from the team with his file marked "Never to play for England/Wales/Scotland (whoever) again", what then? Your system suggests a life ban.

Then its moot isn't it!

It would be relatively simple to set up a framework to ensure that players cannot skirt around a ban by arranging other games to be suspended from.

Rule 1. Players suspensions are expressed in terms of matches and weeks whichever is the longer!

Rule 2. A suspended player is banned from all games encompassing the period of the ban

Rule 3. A player may not serve out a ban by claiming selection for a lower level game unless Rule 4 applies

Rule 4. A player who is banned at a point in the season, tournament or competition where there are insufficient games left to serve out the ban, will be banned from the next scheduled regular season games regardless of level.


These four just about cover every contingency

examples

A player is banned at Super Rugby for three matches/weeks. In the next three weeks, there is a bye week, so the player's ban is extended until he has missed three matches (Rule 2)

A player is banned for three matches/weeks after being cited in the penultimate round the 6N. He will miss the last round of the 6N and his next two club matches (Rule 4)

A player is banned for one match/week after being cited in the third round of the 6N. The next round of 6N is two weeks away. The player will miss that round because he cannot serve out his ban by claiming selection for his club side on the bye weekend (Rule 3)

An player is banned for four weeks after being cited in the bronze medal match of the RWC. He will miss the next four matches for his club of franchise (Rule 4)

 

[OB..]

A player gets a ban following the last club match of the season. He has not been selected for the Lions tour, so they settle the matter of how many pre-season games get counted. Then a Lion gets injured and the player is wanted as a replacement. Can he play?

That is another way of asking if panels can review the impact of a ban when circumstances change. The player himself might get injured, and be unavailable for the games for which he has been banned.

We can spend a lot of time on this, but I doubt if we are going to be asked to advise WR.

 

[Ian_Cook]

A player gets a ban following the last club match of the season. He has not been selected for the Lions tour, so they settle the matter of how many pre-season games get counted. Then a Lion gets injured and the player is wanted as a replacement. Can he play?

Rule 4; the Lions matches were scheduled at the time the ban was imposed

He can go, but he will miss however many Lions tour games are necessary to serve out his ban. Assuming its less than eleven, he won't miss any pre-season games after the tour.

We can spend a lot of time on this, but I doubt if we are going to be asked to advise WR.

Nothing wrong with speculation!

 

[Ian_Cook]

And by the way folks, it ain't over yet. In the words of Richard Hawley.... "There's a storm a comin"

http://m.foxsports.com.au/rugby/san...hes-cross-appeal/story-e6frf4pu-1227465383909

 

[Pegleg]

Not at all. CO's gone half cocked - probably sucked in by the dive. JO has brought some sense to it but can't throw CO under bus. All theory of course but a sensible outcome. IMO

Your comments are a clear accusation of bias / cheating / corruptionion the system. There have been cases where the DC has dismissed citings and indeed Red Cards. So you comment is clearly absurd.

YOu are coming across as a whining bad sportsman. I'm sure that is not your intention but it sure looks that way.

 

[Dickie E]

And by the way folks, it ain't over yet. In the words of Richard Hawley.... "There's a storm a comin"

http://m.foxsports.com.au/rugby/san...hes-cross-appeal/story-e6frf4pu-1227465383909

"deep farce" indeed

 

[Dickie E]

YOu are coming across as a whining bad sportsman. I'm sure that is not your intention but it sure looks that way.

How do you get that? Hooper got a 1 week club game ban that I think is excessive but can live with it.

I think you're shitty cos your "striking is striking is striking - hang 'em all high" view got the treatment it deserved.

Anyway, wait'll SANZAR sticks its nose in - then you'll see "whining bad sportsman".

 

[Dickie E]

The CO in that incident decided not to refer it. Maybe he should have, but I don't what on earth that has to do with this incident?

So are you saying that the CO was wrong not to cite Barrett but in the same breath saying that Hooper didn't deserve citing?

Surely they are both one way or the other.

Let me clarify.

There is a set of posters here that think that Hooper should be hung, drawn and quartered because they can't recognise shades of grey.

There is another set of posters who think Barrett was innocent because the stomp was glancing, it wasn't to the head, the victim was asking for it, etc.

If you drew a Venn diagram of these 2 sets there would be an intersection (ie posters who are in both sets).

I am suggesting to this intersection set that they develop some consistency in their views.

Capiche?

 

[damo]

I think the Appeal Tribunal should stay the suspension pending the hearing of the ARU's appeal. Hooper should be free to play for Manly this weekend.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Let me clarify.

There is a set of posters here that think that Hooper should be hung, drawn and quartered because they can't recognise shades of grey.

There is another set of posters who think Barrett was innocent because the stomp was glancing, it wasn't to the head, the victim was asking for it, etc.

If you drew a Venn diagram of these 2 sets there would be an intersection (ie posters who are in both sets).

I am suggesting to this intersection set that they develop some consistency in their views.

Capiche?

I think you need to remind yourself what you are talking about because your medium term memory appears to be a bit suspect

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?18977-George-penalty-try-and-YC-Yes-or-no

I never said what Barrett did was OK, I said it was YC, and Stirzakers action was RC. That's not black and white, thats two shades of grey.

If you really do think that raking a player's back and smacking a player in the back of the head with excessive force are infringements of equal seriousness and equal danger to the victim (especially given WR's current focus concussion and on protecting the head) then I am stunned.

There isn't much more to say!