Lions 2013 Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

thomond2006 · 01-07-2013 07:37PM

danthefan wrote: »

I don't bet, what's this aftertiming carry on? You can't talk about winning a bet unless you mention it before the game or some such? I don't get it.

Part of it I suppose is someone coming along and going "hahahaha I won today hahahaha" just to troll people who legitimately lost. It doesn't happen here thankfully.

I wish more posters on here would post their records on the betting thread, it would make things more interesting. I'd definitely copy posters with a good record!

Lelantos · 01-07-2013 07:55PM

Le vieux renard wrote: »

Finally! After 339 attempts. If at first you fail, try again.

Actually, the Rebels player, Mitchell got a one week ban for lifting Zebo, that was reckless play I believe & they have appealed that.

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 07:56PM

Lelantos wrote: »

Actually, the Rebels player, Mitchell got a one week ban for lifting Zebo, that was reckless play I believe & they have appealed that.

Who? The IRB? :pac:

bilston · 01-07-2013 07:56PM

Regards the captaincy if he is picked then BOD will be captain, otherwise he wouldn't have taken over on Saturday.

Just out if interest, and I'm not a front row guru, but is there any merit in debating the TH slot? Cole seemed to have a real positive impact on Saturday.

Having thought shout it a bit more I could see an argument for blanket changes to both the front and back row this weekend with Roberts and Murray coming into the side as well.

Lelantos · 01-07-2013 08:13PM

Le vieux renard wrote: »

Who? The IRB? :pac:

Rebels

although with the IRB being what it is, it wouldn't surprise me if that had been the case

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 08:17PM

Lelantos wrote: »

Rebels although with the IRB being what it is, it wouldn't surprise me if that had been the case

Actually, the other reason Horwill won't get off is ego. The 2nd lawyer will want to appear erudite and with some extra skill that allowed him to see more complexity than his colleague. It will also help his career, by a bit of free publicity, the man "who got Horwill".

The Aussie · 01-07-2013 08:51PM

I found an answer to my own question, it is the first time they have gone down the appeal route.

So we can take it that there is no longer Double Jeopardy when it concerns Citings in Rugby Union.

"Horwill was originally exonerated by New Zealand judicial officer Nigel Hampton QC last Sunday night after being cited for stamping on rival lock Alun Wyn Jones in the 23-21 first Test loss.

The Australian Rugby Union is incensed at the appeal - the first the IRB has launched against a player being cleared by one of their judicial officers - and has fought for their captain's availability with a crack legal team."

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8683192

thomond2006 · 01-07-2013 08:55PM

The Aussie wrote: »

I found an answer to my own question, it is the first time they have gone down the appeal route.

So we can take it that there is no longer Double Jeopardy when it concerns Citings in Rugby Union.

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8683192

How is appealing a ruling 'double jeopardy'?

The Aussie · 01-07-2013 09:00PM

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction.

Tox56 · 01-07-2013 09:01PM

People would be (and were) criticising the IRB for the original decision, which I thought was dodgy at best, and now they're finally using common sense and reviewing the decision and people will still complain, they have a fairly hopeless task. If the precedent they're setting is taking a second look at dubious decisions by a citing officer/QC/whoever (of which there have been many over the years) I am more than happy with that

dregin · 01-07-2013 09:27PM

The Aussie wrote: »

I found an answer to my own question, it is the first time they have gone down the appeal route.

So we can take it that there is no longer Double Jeopardy when it concerns Citings in Rugby Union.

"Horwill was originally exonerated by New Zealand judicial officer Nigel Hampton QC last Sunday night after being cited for stamping on rival lock Alun Wyn Jones in the 23-21 first Test loss.

The Australian Rugby Union is incensed at the appeal - the first the IRB has launched against a player being cleared by one of their judicial officers - and has fought for their captain's availability with a crack legal team."

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8683192

It's not the first time they've stepped in.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/wallabies/international-rugby-board-under-fire-after-appealing-its-own-decision-not-to-ban-james-horwill/story-e6frf55l-1226671755579#.UdHmBPnbP-o

The Aussie · 01-07-2013 09:38PM

dregin wrote: »

It's not the first time they've stepped in.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/wallabies/international-rugby-board-under-fire-after-appealing-its-own-decision-not-to-ban-james-horwill/story-e6frf55l-1226671755579#.UdHmBPnbP-o

So we can assume Fox Sports are better than ninemsn.

Glad someone else thinks it is Double Jeopardy as well with this.
"The IRB are no strangers to ridiculous, politically motivated decisions but to call a double jeopardy case against Horwill is a new low."

Full Link for Phone users.....

That is the ugly reality of the IRB's decision to re-try his stamping case, which not only directly questions the integrity of the Wallaby captain, but also undermines the IRB's own judicial process to the point of collapse.

The IRB are no strangers to ridiculous, politically motivated decisions but to call a double jeopardy case against Horwill is a new low.

Horwill was cited by the Lions last week for stamping on Alun Wyn Jones' face in Brisbane, and respected Kiwi QC Nigel Hampton - the IRB-appointed, independent judicial officer for the Lions' tour - could not find that Horwill knew Wyn Jones was under him, nor committed the foul play on purpose.

Four whole days later, the IRB announced it was appealing Hampton's verdict. A second hearing will happen next week. There were no grounds given - no legal errors, no disputed logic - and it is believed the IRB board made the decision.

The IRB changed their laws last year to be able to intervene in judicial matters, and did so to challenge the severity of a stamping suspension for Kiwi Adam Thomson. His one-match ban was upped to two.

The IRB are contesting their own not guilty verdict.

Or, to put it another way, they didn't like the answer they got so they'll have another go.

The by-product is the IRB's denigration of Horwill's character.

A stamping charge hangs on intent. Horwill - who has played 130 professional games without ever being cited - says he had no idea Wyn Jones was under him when knocked off balance with a leg raised.

He was unaware what he'd been cited for when told the next day. Hampton could find no evidence to confirm intent or reckless behaviour.

By appealing, the IRB are now saying: we believe Horwill is lying, and did do it on purpose. There is no middle ground here.

There is no coincidence the only two appeals have come after the UK media have heaped scorn on the IRB publicly.

The IRB have jelly-backed themselves in a corner. The judicial system is now the plaything of men in suits. James Horwill's reputation is the biggest casualty.

Read more: http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/wallabies/international-rugby-board-under-fire-after-appealing-its-own-decision-not-to-ban-james-horwill/story-e6frf55l-1226671755579#ixzz2XpPmXxUk

Grandpa Hassan · 01-07-2013 09:41PM

The Aussie wrote: »

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction.

But appeals don't fall within that.

Leaving this incident aside, If a player can appeal, the IRB should be able to as well I guess

subfreq · 01-07-2013 09:44PM

Interesting to read Eddie Jones today also say BOD should be benched/dropped for the next test. He think Roberts and Manu should start.

Surely with both coming back from injury you start BOD and Roberts and expect the likelihood that you will need to sub Doc around the 60 mark. If you are going to gamble then it is whether you include Manu on the bench at the expense of a winger.

That is the best way to play Warrenball for the full 80 and really give the back line a fighting chance.

The Aussie · 01-07-2013 09:46PM

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

But appeals don't fall within that.

Leaving this incident aside, If a player can appeal, the IRB should be able to as well I guess

IRB Appeal = Retrial with no new information.

In other words, we don't like your first answer now go find us someone who will tell us what we want.

Grandpa Hassan · 01-07-2013 09:50PM

The Aussie wrote: »

IRB Appeal = Retrial with no new information.

In other words, we don't like your first answer now go find us someone who will tell us what we want.

But that's the same as if a player appeals. A retrial with no new information.

I'm not saying the verdict here should be different, and it will be harsh if it is. And the IRB appeal seems frivolous IMO....wasn't a stamp, and accidental dangerous play is a bit of a reach.

But the concept of the IRB being able to appeal a decision is sensible.

Lelantos · 01-07-2013 09:54PM

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

But that's the same as if a player appeals. A retrial with no new information.

I'm not saying the verdict here should be different, and it will be harsh if it is. And the IRB appeal seems frivolous IMO....wasn't a stamp, and accidental dangerous play is a bit of a reach.

But the concept of the IRB being able to appeal a decision is sensible.

But only of it goes both ways. If Horwill had been banned for 6 months, would the IRB have appealed that decision?

Grandpa Hassan · 01-07-2013 09:55PM

Lelantos wrote: »

But only of it goes both ways. If Horwill had been banned for 6 months, would the IRB have appealed that decision?

Of course not. But Horwill would.

danthefan · 01-07-2013 09:57PM

Lelantos wrote: »

But only of it goes both ways. If Horwill had been banned for 6 months, would the IRB have appealed that decision?

What on earth are you on about? The player would appeal that decision.

Edit - beaten to it.

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 09:59PM

In common law, what are the grounds for an appeal? I'm no lawyer, so I'm not sure. But I don't think simply not liking a decision is sufficient grounds. So the IRB must feel there was some miscarriage etc. Something to show the QC was right off tangent. Any lawyers on the forum?

matthew8 · 01-07-2013 10:03PM

The difference between the IRB and a player appealing is the IRB are meant to be neutral, the player isn't.

Grandpa Hassan · 01-07-2013 10:04PM

Le vieux renard wrote: »

In common law, what are the grounds for an appeal? I'm no lawyer, so I'm not sure. But I don't think simply not liking a decision is sufficient grounds. So the IRB must feel there was some miscarriage etc. Something to show the QC was right off tangent. Any lawyers on the forum?

Im sure you're right, but I suppose that, when it comes down to it, a miscarriage of justice is in the eye of the beholder....simply a different interpretation of the evidence at hand

The Aussie · 01-07-2013 10:06PM

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

But that's the same as if a player appeals. A retrial with no new information.

The IRB being the power brokers of the Sport, are like the State V James Horwill. The State cannot ask for a retrial of a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction.

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

But the concept of the IRB being able to appeal a decision is sensible.

This I agree with, what I question is their motives considering the gravity of the game they have chosen to throw their weight around with and the way they have buckled to pressure from external sources, next question is, How much money can buy a Game.

Steve Perchance · 01-07-2013 10:08PM

Le vieux renard wrote: »

In common law, what are the grounds for an appeal? I'm no lawyer, so I'm not sure. But I don't think simply not liking a decision is sufficient grounds. So the IRB must feel there was some miscarriage etc. Something to show the QC was right off tangent. Any lawyers on the forum?

Not a lawyer by any stretch, but I suspect the issue was that the wrong standard of proof was applied. The QC essentially said he couldnt disprove Horwills defence, so he had to find him not guilty. Thats the criminal standard of defence - guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

A civil standard would be on the balance probabilities, i.e. was it more likely that he meant it than he didn't. I suspect this standard is the one which should have applied, hence the appeal.

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 10:09PM

matthew8 wrote: »

The difference between the IRB and a player appealing is the IRB are meant to be neutral, the player isn't.

I have no problem with the IRB appealing. My problem is that it was the IRB who appointed the QC in the first place. They are appealing a decision that their own judicial body made. It's called interference. And it's a slippery slope. I mean why have a judiciary? Why not just let the IRB board hand out the sanctions? I mean effectively that's what they're doing here.

Most people don't care too much, because the end justifies the means, and most people want Horwill banned. But in 12 months it could be Sexton, or Zebo or O'Brien or someone else who is on the end of IRB meddling.

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 10:10PM

Steve Perchance wrote: »

Not a lawyer by any stretch, but I suspect the issue was that the wrong standard of proof was applied. The QC essentially said he couldnt disprove Horwills defence, so he had to find him not guilty. Thats the criminal standard of defence - guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

A civil standard would be on the balance probabilities, i.e. was it more likely that he meant it than he didn't. I suspect this standard is the one which should have applied, hence the appeal.

Nice! In that case the appeal should purely be dealing with this interpretation, and it should not really be a re-trial in the sense of starting from scratch.

.ak · 01-07-2013 10:12PM

Le vieux renard wrote: »

I have no problem with the IRB appealing. My problem is that it was the IRB who appointed the QC in the first place. They are appealing a decision that their own judicial body made. It's called interference. And it's a slippery slope. I mean why have a judiciary? Why not just let the IRB board hand out the sanctions? I mean effectively that's what they're doing here.

Most people don't care too much, because the end justifies the means, and most people want Horwill banned. But in 12 months it could be Sexton, or Zebo or O'Brien or someone else who is on the end of IRB meddling.

I'd be pretty disgusted if Sexton, Zebo or O'Brien lashed out with their boot at someone's head reckless and got off with the ban. Infact, one of the above did, and copped a ban. There weren't many complaints on here at the time even tho there was very little in it.

.ak · 01-07-2013 10:13PM

Steve Perchance wrote: »

Not a lawyer by any stretch, but I suspect the issue was that the wrong standard of proof was applied. The QC essentially said he couldnt disprove Horwills defence, so he had to find him not guilty. Thats the criminal standard of defence - guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

A civil standard would be on the balance probabilities, i.e. was it more likely that he meant it than he didn't. I suspect this standard is the one which should have applied, hence the appeal.

Actually read this in a paper also. I think that is exactly their grounds for the appeal.

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 10:13PM

.ak wrote: »

I'd be pretty disgusted if Sexton, Zebo or O'Brien lashed out with their boot at someone's head reckless and got off with the ban. Infact, one of the above did, and copped a ban. There weren't many complaints on here at the time even tho there was very little in it.

.ak, you're not dealing with the issue of IRB interference in their own judicial process. Leave the Horwill saga aside - this sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion, regardless of the merits or otherwise of the case.

I don't really want to descend into politics, but the judiciary should be independent. Alan Shatter might appoint top judges etc, but I definitely wouldn't want him appealing decisions he didn't like, and choosing a new judge to hear the case.

Tox56 · 01-07-2013 10:16PM

Le vieux renard wrote: »

Most people don't care too much, because the end justifies the means, and most people want Horwill banned. But in 12 months it could be Sexton, or Zebo or O'Brien or someone else who is on the end of IRB meddling.

To be honest if the decision involving those players is so clearly dubious that the IRB feel the need to intervene like in this case, they're getting what's coming to them, Irish or not. Obviously it means nothing for me to say this now when nothing has happened but I definitely think the IRB have got the right idea by giving themselves the right to appeal.

Lions 2013 Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

Comments