Hooper Cited Aus vs Arg

[Pegleg]

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

If you learn to red properly I have said no such thing. I DID say that Hooper struck a player. I do think he deserved to be red carded. So, in this instance, he deserved to be santioned. Not all incidents of striking do.

If you got away from nationalities you might just see this with two eyes.

 

[Browner]

Originally Posted by galumay 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.

Hi Galumay,
Please send my 1$Aus to the RFU's injured amateur referees fund.

 

[Browner]

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

That incident was a YC at best.

100% agree. Should have been a Level 1 citing at worst.

Couldn't understand why the hearing was delayed, now it all makes sense - time to orchestrate players to be listed as replacements at low club games.

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

However devised this is a Geniusepper: you have to admire the Aussies skill at such politics, HorwillUnbalanceGate & now HooperReplacementGate, i'm looking forward to the next instalment in ARU version of disciplinary 'creative Accountancy'

Its so long since Johnson id almost forgotten that England were capable of such kidology !:biggrin:

 

[Browner]

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.

What?? & let all opponents [who were so motivated/incentivised?] to target him with continual provocations hoping for a unfortunate retaliatory reaction ..... perish the thought !

 

[Ian_Cook]

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.

I agree. If the appeals are successful, he would have been unjustly banned for a game. Even convicted felons are allowed out when an appeal has been allowed,

 

[damo]

What?? & let all opponents [who were so motivated/incentivised?] to target him with continual provocations hoping for a unfortunate retaliatory reaction ..... perish the thought !

I fear that you missed the point of my post.

 

[Dickie E]

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.

Like the proverbial mullet?

What I think is that a cuff to the back of the head like your momma used to do when she caught you picking your nose is NO WORSE THAN a player stomping on a defenceless & trapped player's kidney region with rugby boots.

See, I can play weasel words too though I admit I'm not in your league.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Like the proverbial mullet?

What I think is that a cuff to the back of the head like your momma used to do when she caught you picking your nose is NO WORSE THAN a player stomping on a defenceless & trapped player's kidney region with rugby boots.

See, I can play weasel words too though I admit I'm not in your league.

Oh, I agree entirely (on both counts) however, what Hooper did was in no way, shape or form "a cuff to the back of the head like your momma used to do when she caught you picking your nose". It was a strike that made "contact with the back of the opponent's neck and head with considerable, and intentional force". It was made with a fully cocked arm and and delivered like a punch, not using just a flick of the wrist.

The video evidence overwhelmingly supports the latter!

 

[Jarrod Burton]

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

How is a strike to the head off topic when we are talking about striking to the head - if people want to argue that Hooper deserves a ban, then defend the fact that JdP got no red (during or post match) and zero weeks suspension!

Oh, I agree entirely (on both counts) however, what Hooper did was in no way, shape or form "a cuff to the back of the head like your momma used to do when she caught you picking your nose". It was a strike that made "contact with the back of the opponent's neck and head with considerable, and intentional force". It was made with a fully cocked arm and and delivered like a punch, not using just a flick of the wrist.

And Hooper's action is effectively the same action as JdP against Weeks.

 

[RobLev]

...And Hooper's action is effectively the same action as JdP against Weeks.

JdP's action was a (weakly delivered) round-arm "cuff to the back of the head like your momma used to do when she caught you picking your nose" such as was mentioned by Dickie; except that any self-respecting "momma" who delivered a cuff like that would be ashamed of it. He even hit with the wrist!

Hooper's, on the other hand, was a full-blooded palm-heel strike to the base of the skull. Any "momma" who delivered a "cuff" like that would be up before the beak.

Both were foul play - but Hooper's was several magnitudes fouler.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Hooper's, on the other hand, was a full-blooded palm-heel strike to the base of the skull. Any "momma" who delivered a "cuff" like that would be up before the beak.

You must have access to better footage than I've seen then, as its pretty hard to claim it hits the base of the skull given what I've seen. Central back or upper shoulders, but no more than that.

By the way - I dislike Hooper so don't try to claim that this is a biased Australian thing.

 

[RobLev]

You must have access to better footage than I've seen then, as its pretty hard to claim it hits the base of the skull given what I've seen. Central back or upper shoulders, but no more than that.

Nigel Hampton QC presumably does - he found the strike was aimed at and landed on the "head and neck"; which tallies with my impression from the footage posted on this thread.

JdP's open-handed slap landed, with the wrist, on the back of Weeks's skull. He probably hurt himself more than he did Weeks.

By the way - I dislike Hooper so don't try to claim that this is a biased Australian thing.

 

[Browner]

How is a strike to the head off topic when we are talking about striking to the head - if people want to argue that Hooper deserves a ban, then defend the fact that JdP got no red (during or post match) and zero weeks suspension!

And Hooper's action is effectively the same action as JdP against Weeks.

Hi Jarrod, wasn't aiming the off topic comment at you, I was actually aiming it my own comment ! cos we'd all recently debated penalty reversal for relation. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Anyway, the video on GAGR is much better that the tiny clip that Ian Cook keeps posting, as his skillful cutting skills ( deliberately??...hmmnnn?) Don't show the full follow through of the shove. See here
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/video-proof-hooper-not-guilty-of-punching/

One of the comments that followed that clip adequately sum up my viewing of the incident, which i agree with you is akin to the severity of JdD.

He said

. I've watched this more times than I care to admit, at first I thought the initial contact looked like a punch but Hooper's body movement and the positioning of his right arm as Sanchez falls indicates it was no more than a hard shove to the back ** at the top/lower neck area.**

Plenty of people will disagree, but to me the tell-tale sign is the way Hooper's body moves as Sanchez starts to fall - there's a point where it moves forward as it would when pushing a heavy weight which suddenly gives way. A punch or strike would not have this affect (I did boxing years ago and have done martial arts for many years so I'm very familiar with the mechanics of punching and striking!).


**browner adds "

JdP got a YC for his ( rightly imo) & Dickie has this spot on when he suggests that Hooper should have got a YC, I go further and suggest the CC should have dealt with this via a Level1 sanction. The politics that followed with appeal and counter appeal is an interesting watch from distance.

Damo, I got your smart point, we both suspect that he wasn't seriously considered for the lowly bench for the manly fixture with a bonafide intention of playing, immerely suggesting that if he does he's a perfect target for anyone who would like to see him further in bother, for a decent weighted 'brown envelope' I'm sure someone could be convinced to set out to provoke him, after all being professional isnt always about winning, its sometimes about earnings , as journeymen boxers demonstrate all the time.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't really understand what SANZAR was hoping to achieve with their appeal. There was always going to be mitigation for Hooper's clean record, and since LE is two weeks, the only way they could have got a more severe ban was to argue that the entry point should have been MR. While I think it was striking* I can't see how MR could be justified.

*

You must have access to better footage than I've seen then, as its pretty hard to claim it hits the base of the skull given what I've seen. Central back or upper shoulders, but no more than that.

Have a look at the animated gif I posted in post #108. I cannot understand how anyone can possibly look at that and conclude that the strike landed on Sanchez' back; had it done so, Sanchez' head would have whipped backwards, not forwards. In the circumstances of this strike, there is one, and only one way that Sanchez' head could be propelled forwards; the blow landing on the back of his head.


ETA: Its also worth also noting that the ARU's appeal, in which they were trying to argue that hitting an opponent with an open hand is not striking, was also dismissed (and rightly so).
I think we can expect WR to close that loophole in the 2016 Laws.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

JdP's open-handed slap landed, with the wrist, on the back of Weeks's skull.

But isn't striking, striking? Or are some animals more equal than others? And what if Weeks had gone down like a shower of the proverbial like the Argie rather than giving JdP a rather larger serving of what he'd just received?

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Have a look at the animated gif I posted in post #108. I cannot understand how anyone can possibly look at that and conclude that the strike landed on Sanchez' back; had it done so, Sanchez' head would have whipped backwards, not forwards. In the circumstances of this strike, there is one, and only one way that Sanchez' head could be propelled forwards; the blow landing on the back of his head.

Depending on the angle of strike, the actual contact point, momentum in the player's bodies and some other variables, a player's head may not necessarily whip backwards, especially given that Sanchez's momentum gets shifted as Hooper's body turns and drags the Argentinian's arm and body forwards. Bodies are not simple systems from an engineering point of view and the number of joints and their interaction to forces are incredibly complex. Likely that the striking made initial contact with the upper shoulder or neck, but without definitive proof (that movie is too poor a quality to really tell) I'm not willing to punish someone.

 

[SimonSmith]

Anyway, the video on GAGR is much better that the tiny clip that Ian Cook keeps posting, as his skillful cutting skills ( deliberately??...hmmnnn?) Don't show the full follow through of the shove. See here
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/video-proof-hooper-not-guilty-of-punching/

look, if you disagree, then do so.

please stop attacking people - well, one person's - integrity. You've been warned before.
same goes for everyone. This does NOT devolve into jibes at the person.

 

[galumay]

Hi Galumay,
Please send my 1$Aus to the RFU's injured amateur referees fund.

I am tempted to run the defence that he DID get 2 weeks, then mitigated down to 1, but in the spirit of fair play I shall pay up and dontate to your nominated charity!

EDIT - couldnt find an RFU injured amateur referees fund, so I bought you a beer instead!

 

[Browner]

I am tempted to run the defence that he DID get 2 weeks, then mitigated down to 1, but in the spirit of fair play I shall pay up and dontate to your nominated charity!

EDIT - couldnt find an RFU injured amateur referees fund, so I bought you a beer instead!

Great i hope it tasted nice.

It's run by the 'team' that coordinate the value the volunteer referee within the referees department at HQ.

 

[Browner]

look, if you disagree, then do so.

please stop attacking people - well, one person's - integrity. You've been warned before.
same goes for everyone. This does NOT devolve into jibes at the person.

I actually admire and am jealous of some of the forensic presentation skills often displayed by the aforementioned poster, and have said so on previous occassions, however I'm perfectly within my rights on a public forum to say when I feel any poster is taking a selective approach to any subject, let's not forget this posters legendary ability to say what he likes to anyone ! So save your sycophanticism its unnecessary and unwanted.

If however you saying that the full follow through of Hoopers shovestrike was accidentally omitted when the 'cutting' was offerred as "absolute proof" then I suggest you are blindly reinforcing the adhoring support of your buddy that you've uttered at me previously. Thanks, zzzzzz

The poster self declares as an expert at such media presentation things, so i dismiss the notion that the sample 'selected' clip was accidentally foreshortened and i merely offer up the suggestion that it was so manufactured to try and promote his own view, which coincidentally is against a forthcoming NZAB opponent.

As for targeting, if you do some genuine data analysis you'll soon see both a disproportionate response rate and spikey language used aimed at this postee.

If you don't agree, or indeed can't be arsed, then sobeit and tough in equal proportion, you can own that prerogative without the lecture thank you.