Apparently you can support James Horwill by emailing the IRB direct at irb@irb.com and lending voice to this bullshit charge they've come up with. Come on guys - get typing now!!! Don't let the crooked bastardheads win this one!!
Printable View
Apparently you can support James Horwill by emailing the IRB direct at irb@irb.com and lending voice to this bullshit charge they've come up with. Come on guys - get typing now!!! Don't let the crooked bastardheads win this one!!
problem is Horwill is a vicious thug who has bashed Pek and Hodgo behind the play, so my hearts not bleeding for him.
correct call on IRB rhough valzc
Posted via Mobile Device
I agree with you SB about Horwill - have never really liked his nasty plays but this call is for the Wallabies rather than support for Horwill himself. And also the underhandedness of the IRB - social media can hopefully hammer the IRB and this stunt they're trying to pull.
IRB appealing the decision the IRB judicial officer came to?
Doesn't smell fishy at all....
The judiciary is independent from the IRB, whilst I believe Horwill was lucky to escape punishment, I can see why he was cleared. It is not a clear stamp, he does look off balance,
I was expecting a lower charge of 'Reckless use of the boot' to be given and a one week ban, perhaps that will be what will happen now.
I doubt writing to the IRB's capture all email address will achieve anything than an office admin in Dublin having to delete a lot more emails than usual.
Posted via Mobile Device
The IRB need to state why they have decided to appeal the decision. There needs to be a reason! If the only reason is they don't like the decision then it makes a mockery of their system. If, however, there is more evidence that has come to light subsequent to the decision then it makes sense to review the decision. Any which way, the reasoning behind the appeal needs to be made public.
Horwill's actions might be dubious, but how is the IRB allowed to rule against it's own judicial review? If the IRB believes that Nigel Hampton QC made a mistake in clearing Horwill in the review, they can demote him from the review panel, but surely trying Horwill twice is double jeopardy?
If a player is found guilty, but believes the panel to have made a mistake, do they have the ability to appeal the outcome? I thought you could only appeal the penalty (which makes the IRB's appeal to increase Thompson's penalty acceptable.)
Here is a twitter campaign, for all those twits out there ;) :
"Join the campaign to help James Horwill beat a stomping charge for a second time #JusticeforHorwill"
Read more: http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/wa...#ixzz2XldCnPHN
It's good to see that Horwill has a strong defence team to defend the charge again. As Sharpe said this whole thing could be setting a dangerous precedent.
"James Horwill to have new lawyer in defence team as he tries to beat a second time for a second time
"A fresh legal brain in James Horwill's defence team for Monday's judicial dogfight will try to derail the International Rugby Board process that has all but prejudged the Wallabies captain will miss Saturday's series decider in Sydney.
Former New Zealand Rugby Union lawyer Steve Cottrell was being enlisted even as Horwill urged his team of Wallabies fighters to 1-1 against a British and Irish Lions team they have led for 26 minutes in the two Tests of this series."
Read more: http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/ja...#ixzz2Xle84yHy
I didn't see the IRB being so proactive when the Lions deliberately took out Stephen Larkham in the last series. I do remember them passing "refereeing directives" to stifle George Smith at the breakdown however. And changing the obstructing law to "crossing." And allowing the ball carrier to disengage from the back of the maul and re-join in a new position...etc...etc...
Not that I'm a conspiracy theorist.
Try this one on for size this is a head stomp with nothign coming from it.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpBlCAf6JBA"]Owen Farrell head stomp - YouTube[/ame]
Nathan Hines got away with concussing Richard Hill in game 2, which put him out from the rest of the series. (3:37 in to the clip)
I think you'll find it was Nathan Grey.
Probably? or Probably not? :confused:
Either way, that one reactionary jump was nothing compared to the constant, late and very deliberate shoulder charges that Larkham had to put up with.
:eek:
We should have started a media campaign just like the London rugby press did! :protest: