Lions 2013 Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

The Aussie · 01-07-2013 10:16PM

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.

Good point well made.

Le vieux renard wrote: »

Most people don't care too much, because the end justifies the means, and most people want Horwill banned.

That's why I'm taking the whole thing with a pinch of Salt.

Le vieux renard wrote: »

But in 12 months it could be Sexton, or Zebo or O'Brien or someone else who is on the end of IRB meddling.

Boards would be in meltdown and the Mods will be taking turns wielding the Ban Hammer for a week, how epic would that be.

.ak · 01-07-2013 10:18PM

Le vieux renard wrote: »

.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 dunno, I just thought I was answering your point.

If SOB lashed out at somebodies head and the citing commissioner said 'Nah, I can't prove anything' because of the wording of the law or their interpretation then I would be happy for SOB to stand before the judiciary again under a different panel if needs be. I would have absolutely no problem there.

The issue here is we think the panels are infallible. They aren't. They certainly aren't, otherwise Horwill would not have played on Saturday.

I know you think the IRB are sitting up in Mount Doom plotting Horwill's demise, but what to do they have to gain for having him banned? Nothing. What do they have to lose if he isn't put before to judiciary again? Integrity.

Also - you're making the point that most people want Horwill banned. I do. But I couldn't care what team he plays for or the fact it's a Lions tour. He was reckless with his boot and it wasn't an accident. That has nothing to do with the fact he's Australian, or he's playing against the Lions next week.

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 10:18PM

Tox56 wrote: »

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.

Yes OK. But they should relinquish their right then to appoint the judiciary. Sorry, but it's this kind of thing that are the fundamentals of law etc. Independence, and freedom from interference.

Rightwing · 01-07-2013 10:19PM

Not sure most people want Horwill banned, I certainly don't.

Lelantos · 01-07-2013 10:20PM

danthefan wrote: »

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

Edit - beaten to it.

What I'm on about is, the IRB must be seen to be even handed. If they feel a decision is too lenient, appeal, by all means. But if a decision is too severe, they should appeal that too & not let it up tithe player, or the club to do so. That's all I'm saying.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience · 01-07-2013 10:20PM

If Horwill isn't banned it reflects badly on the sport as a whole

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 10:21PM

.ak wrote: »

I dunno, I just thought I was answering your point.

If SOB lashed out at somebodies head and the citing commissioner said 'Nah, I can't prove anything' because of the wording of the law or their interpretation then I would be happy for SOB to stand before the judiciary again under a different panel if needs be. I would have absolutely no problem there.

The issue here is we think the panels are infallible. They aren't. They certainly aren't, otherwise Horwill would not have played on Saturday.

I know you think the IRB are sitting up in Mount Doom plotting Horwill's demise, but what to do they have to gain for having him banned? Nothing. What do they have to lose if he isn't put before to judiciary again? Integrity.

They have an agenda to stamp out foul play in rugby which is to be fully commended. It is highly regrettable that many of the high profile unsavoury incidents in modern times have been as part of Lions series.

I just dont like the IRB being judge & juror. Nothing to do with rugby. A lot to do with how I like my democracy to work.

Lelantos · 01-07-2013 10:22PM

.ak wrote: »

I dunno, I just thought I was answering your point.

If SOB lashed out at somebodies head and the citing commissioner said 'Nah, I can't prove anything' because of the wording of the law or their interpretation then I would be happy for SOB to stand before the judiciary again under a different panel if needs be. I would have absolutely no problem there.

The issue here is we think the panels are infallible. They aren't. They certainly aren't, otherwise Horwill would not have played on Saturday.

I know you think the IRB are sitting up in Mount Doom plotting Horwill's demise, but what to do they have to gain for having him banned? Nothing. What do they have to lose if he isn't put before to judiciary again? Integrity.

Also - you're making the point that most people want Horwill banned. I do. But I couldn't care what team he plays for or the fact it's a Lions tour. He was reckless with his boot and it wasn't an accident. That has nothing to do with the fact he's Australian, or he's playing against the Lions next week.

Oh, I think the one word that can't be used in this affair is integrity.

Buer · 01-07-2013 10:23PM

Le vieux renard wrote: »

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.

No but the attorney general can and it will go to the court of appeal in front of another judiciary.

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 10:24PM

Buer wrote: »

No but the attorney general can and it will go to the court of appeal in front of another judiciary.

But does the attorney general also choose who is on the court of appeal?

irishbucsfan · 01-07-2013 10:25PM

There's no doubt he should be banned. If I did that in a match I'd have no problem seeing red for it. Whether or not you do something intentionally does not excuse potentially dangerous negligence, and never has. If he had done it intentionally, he would be seeing a very lengthy ban, but because it was, in my opinion, accidental he should only see a couple of weeks. He has to go though, and it's quite mad that he was playing last week, although I think (in purely rugby terms) the series was probably the better for him being there.

.ak · 01-07-2013 10:25PM

Lelantos wrote: »

Oh, I think the one word that can't be used in this affair is integrity.

It may be a cliche but that is exactly what the IRB are trying to do. Save face for Rugby. I know the two sets of incidents are completely seperate, but the POC incident left egg on the face of the game and quite frankly the game suffered from it. You had people all across the globe making fun of the game across all sorts of media, social or mainstream or otherwise, and frankly it reared it's head again once Horwill slipped loose in what seemed like some sort of lawyer's loophole, and frankly seemed to most people for the sake of making a tour more interesting.

The IRB seriously lost face over it. Integrity, for another word.

Tox56 · 01-07-2013 10:26PM

Lelantos wrote: »

What I'm on about is, the IRB must be seen to be even handed. If they feel a decision is too lenient, appeal, by all means. But if a decision is too severe, they should appeal that too & not let it up tithe player, or the club to do so. That's all I'm saying.

That's fine in theory but how many times have you seen a ban that was too severe? They're taking weeks off for everything these days, not physically assaulting the citing officer at the hearing usually cuts about 2 weeks. You have to possess a Dylan Hartley-esque record to get a 'proper' ban, the overwhelming majority of decisions worth appealing will be on the lenient side, that's just how it is

subfreq · 01-07-2013 10:27PM

How many of you will feel the series win is a hollow disgrace and affront to the game, that the IRB has let you down, if Farrell comes off the bench to score the winning points?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVLa5-GyBns

Whilst I don't care about Horwill getting banned, I really think people are missing the point here in epic proportions.

.ak · 01-07-2013 10:27PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There's no doubt he should be banned. If I did that in a match I'd have no problem seeing red for it. Whether or not you do something intentionally does not excuse potentially dangerous negligence, and never has. If he had done it intentionally, he would be seeing a very lengthy ban, but because it was, in my opinion, accidental he should only see a couple of weeks. He has to go though, and it's quite mad that he was playing last week, although I think (in purely rugby terms) the series was probably the better for him being there.

+1, I wasn't so bothered because I wanted the Australians at full strength. But looking at the broader picture it was absolute madness that he slipped a ban, and the IRB were obviously as surprised as everyone else. Something wasn't right there.

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 10:28PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There's no doubt he should be banned. If I did that in a match I'd have no problem seeing red for it. Whether or not you do something intentionally does not excuse potentially dangerous negligence, and never has. If he had done it intentionally, he would be seeing a very lengthy ban, but because it was, in my opinion, accidental he should only see a couple of weeks. He has to go though, and it's quite mad that he was playing last week, although I think (in purely rugby terms) the series was probably the better for him being there.

We can also agree on this IBF. However, it has to hinge on whether he was aware that AWJ was in the vicinity of his boot. His defence (as far as I understand), accepted by the QC, was that he was not aware of where AWJ was in relation to his feet. If this can be disproved (which as highlighted above depends on innocent until proven guilty vs balance of probabilities), then yes reckless at best, foul-play at worst.

Kiwi_knock · 01-07-2013 10:28PM

Should Farrell have been cited for reckless use of the boot on Ben Lucas? He took his ear off. I am unsure, it was not intentional but he really did not need to go into the ruck so maybe he was reckless with that.

Buer · 01-07-2013 10:29PM

Le vieux renard wrote: »

But does the attorney general also choose who is on the court of appeal?

No but, to muddy the waters, the court of appeal itself can highlight a matter for appeal!

.ak · 01-07-2013 10:30PM

subfreq wrote: »

How many of you will feel the series win is a hollow disgrace and affront to the game, that the IRB has let you down, if Farrell comes off the bench to score the winning points?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVLa5-GyBns

Whilst I don't care about Horwill getting banned, I really think people are missing the point here in epic proportions.

There's a massive difference there isn't there. One person is intentionally rucking, the other is trying to run past people?

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 10:30PM

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

Should Farrell have been cited for reckless use of the boot on Ben Lucas? He took his ear off. I am unsure, it was not intentional but he really did not need to go into the ruck so maybe he was reckless with that.

Well, judging by the logic used by many on this forum, yes he should have been cited and banned for reckless use of the boot. Clearly he knew there was a mass of bodies lying there, cleary it was reckless to walk on them. Clear cut.

Quint2010 · 01-07-2013 10:30PM

This from the BBC:

"It could be a particularly momentous occasion for O'Driscoll, who last Saturday broke Willie John McBride's record (4,375 days) for the longest Lions Test career.
If he starts this Saturday, at the conclusion of his fourth and final tour, the celebrated centre will also equal George Gregan's world record of 133 Test starts from his 139-cap Wallabies career.
If he is in the starting XV at Sydney's former Olympic Stadium, O'Driscoll will have started all but one of his 134 Tests, including 125 for Ireland"

Buer · 01-07-2013 10:32PM

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

Should Farrell have been cited for reckless use of the boot on Ben Lucas? He took his ear off. I am unsure, it was not intentional but he really did not need to go into the ruck so maybe he was reckless with that.

Absolutely. I would completely support a ban for that. You MUST show a duty of care as to where you put your feet in those situations.

I wouldn't care if they player was wearing blue, green, red, yellow or crescent moons, they should cop a ban for recklessness. That's the first time I've seen that and more of a fuss should have been made.

Rightwing · 01-07-2013 10:33PM

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

Should Farrell have been cited for reckless use of the boot on Ben Lucas? He took his ear off. I am unsure, it was not intentional but he really did not need to go into the ruck so maybe he was reckless with that.

That's a good point, there could be a lot of cases needing reviews after this.

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 10:34PM

.ak wrote: »

There's a massive difference there isn't there. One person is intentionally rucking, the other is trying to run past people?

He wasn't intentionally rucking .ak. He put his boot back down on the ground to stop himself falling over.

.ak · 01-07-2013 10:34PM

Yeah looking at again Farrell was incredibly silly... He's actually lucky he only caught his ear.

.ak · 01-07-2013 10:35PM

Le vieux renard wrote: »

He wasn't intentionally rucking .ak. He put his boot back down on the ground to stop himself falling over.

Balderdash. When have you ever put your boot back down on the ground in the direction you're falling FROM to stop yourself falling over? You put it in the direction your falling TO to stop yourself falling.

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 10:35PM

Buer wrote: »

No but, to muddy the waters, the court of appeal itself can highlight a matter for appeal!

Too smart for me. The devil is in the detail, huh Buer

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 10:37PM

.ak wrote: »

Balderdash. When have you ever put your boot back down on the ground in the direction you're falling FROM to stop yourself falling over? You put it in the direction your falling TO to stop yourself falling.

We'll just have to pull out the old agree to disagree. If that was an intentional ruck onto AWJ's face, then I'd support a lengthy ban. But I don't believe it was. However, neither of us are Horwill, so neither of us can be sure.

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 10:37PM

Buer wrote: »

Absolutely. I would completely support a ban for that. You MUST show a duty of care as to where you put your feet in those situations.

I wouldn't care if they player was wearing blue, green, red, yellow or crescent moons, they should cop a ban for recklessness. That's the first time I've seen that and more of a fuss should have been made.

+1 for being consistent Buer.

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 10:41PM

Quint2010 wrote: »

This from the BBC:

"It could be a particularly momentous occasion for O'Driscoll, who last Saturday broke Willie John McBride's record (4,375 days) for the longest Lions Test career.
If he starts this Saturday, at the conclusion of his fourth and final tour, the celebrated centre will also equal George Gregan's world record of 133 Test starts from his 139-cap Wallabies career.
If he is in the starting XV at Sydney's former Olympic Stadium, O'Driscoll will have started all but one of his 134 Tests, including 125 for Ireland"

Which begs the pub-quiz question, in which test did BOD come off the bench? No cheating with wikipedia, now.

Lions 2013 Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

Comments