The IRB have appealed against the Horwil verdict

[Account Deleted]

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2068083.html

 

[Account Deleted]

The appeal will be heard by Graeme Mew (Canada) following the second Test between Australia and the British & Irish Lions. Horwill is free to play pending the outcome of the appeal.

 

[Toby Warren]

I assume this was done via Twitter? epper:

'We've totes appealed LOL'

 

[damo]

Good on them for learning the lesson from the Thomson and Fillol messes and keeping it out of the social media prior to the announcement.

 

[Jacko]

Great idea Toby - give everyone an hour to vote on it. #guilty or #notguilty
Saves spending money on all these expensive QCs!

 

[irishref]

Wow. Big big call.

 

[Simon Thomas]

wow - massive decision for IRB to make and I would love to know the politics behind it.
surely this brings the judgement of their own Judicial Officer Nigel Hampton into question.

 

[irishref]

wow - massive decision for IRB to make and I would love to know the politics behind it.
surely this brings the judgement of their own Judicial Officer Nigel Hampton into question.

It would seem to.

And don't call me Shirley :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

someone threatening legal action ?

I suspect that the RugbyLaw blog about the wrong standard of proof being applied may be bang on the money
http://rugbylaw.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/james-horwill-citing.html

notice that the IRB press release actually mentions the correct test that should have been applied - balance of probabilities.
That sounds like a stake in ground for the appeal

 

[Womble]

wow - massive decision for IRB to make and I would love to know the politics behind it.
surely this brings the judgement of their own Judicial Officer Nigel Hampton into question.

Maybe the good old fashioned rugby ethos has poked its head out for a look! Down at our club we still ban players for scullduggery missed by the officials. IMO its the correct call and maybe, just maybe there are no politics behind it! The boss is doing what is right for the game.........

 

[Toby Warren]

Player A stamps/tramples on player b's head causing a cut next to the eye with his studs.

IRB doesn't think that this going unpunished is a good look for the game.

 

[Simon Thomas]

It would seem to.

And don't call me Shirley :biggrin:

Roger Victor :biggrin:

 

[OB..]

wow - massive decision for IRB to make and I would love to know the politics behind it.
surely this brings the judgement of their own Judicial Officer Nigel Hampton into question.

Being over-ruled does not in itself damage a judge's career.

 

[Rushforth]

Being over-ruled does not in itself damage a judge's career.

I should hope not, given that in general we as referees are judge and jury on the field of play. It makes sense to have (at least) two levels of appeal for egregious (goodness, I spelled that right first time!) mis-takes (hyphen intended, for not seen), because mistakes are possible at any level.

And judges are just as likely to make them as the rest of us are, if they take four hours to decide they will inevitably have to consider both sides of the argument for longer than those of us who post on forums do.

Not that I would want to trust a judge in a matter of life and death who has no clue about the laws of rugby nor physics, mind.

 

[L'irlandais]

The IRB statement said:

"As the 2013 Lions tour falls within the scope of the IRB merit-based appointment scheme approved by the IRB Council, the IRB has the right to appeal any decision arising from matches under the scheme."

Source : iRB

They are perfectly entitled to appeal. To be honest, while it did look like the Aussies captain lost his balance ; it seemed (to me) that his losing his balance (as the ruck moved from under his supporting right shoulder,) spared the player on the ground a well aimed stamp to the head.

Let the experts sorted it out, God's knows they're paid enough to get it right first time.

 

[Thomond78]

I should hope not, given that in general we as referees are judge and jury on the field of play. It makes sense to have (at least) two levels of appeal for egregious (goodness, I spelled that right first time!) mis-takes (hyphen intended, for not seen), because mistakes are possible at any level.

And judges are just as likely to make them as the rest of us are, if they take four hours to decide they will inevitably have to consider both sides of the argument for longer than those of us who post on forums do.

Not that I would want to trust a judge in a matter of life and death who has no clue about the laws of rugby nor physics, mind.

Decision-making subject to review is robust decision-making, because it brings with the habit of checking your decisions. And that means more survive review, and more are correct, to everyone's benefit. I would say it's a sign the system works. It's not embarrassing, or personal for the decision-maker to be challenged or critiqued; you make a decision in good faith, and no-one gets it right all the time. But it makes the system stronger, and the decision-making better, and that's what we all want.

You will appreciate, of course, that when I change into my supporter's hat that I reserve the supporter's right to drop the objectivity and attribute everything going against my mob to idiot conspiracy by everyone from God downward.

 

[Jenko]

Roger Victor :biggrin:

Roger Roger what's the vector Victor?

 

[Phil E]

Please, please, don't anyone say anything about naked men and showers :wow::norc:

 

[Dickie E]

So what does an appeal mean? If I appealed against a legal decision it would mean I thought the decision was wrong. Are the IRB calling Horwill a liar and the judicial chap incompetent at best and corrupt at worst?

How much pressure now is the Canadian chap under to come up with a guilty outcome to avoid the IRB looking like prats?

This is like me giving a penalty to Blue, then my assessor running on, with another ref in tow, to question the decision.

The umpire has made his call; move on.

 

[Red Cap Ref]

It is not like that at all, they are specifically mentioning player welfare. I read that as they are uncomfortable with the appearance that you can excuse what appears to be a stamp to the head.
To use your assessor analogy, it would be like him having a word after the match to point out that you had consistently not penalised high tackles, but had made it clear that you had seen the incident and were happy with it.
His intention to ensure that players are not at risk because an interpretation is not sound.