Monday, November 26, 2012
Andrew Hore cited for off the ball stiffarm on Bradley Davies
All Black hooker Andrew Hore has been cited for the attack that knocked out Bradley Davies and put the Welsh lock in hospital for further assesment. New Zealand won the game 33-10 but perhaps should have played it with just fourteen on the park.
Hore's swinging arm on Davies happened just 30 seconds into the Millennium Stadium Test match, but wasn't spotted by referee Craig Joubert and his assistants, Greg Garner and Jerome Garces.
At this stage in Test rugby, the Television Match Official isn't allowed to be used for foul play incidents, so Hore was free to play on. If the TMO was called upon, you'd think that New Zealand would have been one player down for 79 minutes of the match.
"Bradley has gone down in a heap. The unfortunate thing for us is they're going to admit him to hospital. He's a bit like 10-second Bob at the moment. He doesn't quite know where he's at. Fingers crossed he recovers but he was a big loss for us, particularly early on," Warren Gatland reacted.
"From the initial look at the video, Bradley's been hit from behind and he's gone down. Whether it's a swinging arm... you don't usually associate the All Blacks as a side that resorts to cheap shots. I hope that's not the case. I hope it's just an accident."
Hore is likely to receive a big suspension, particularly in the wake of Adam Thomson receiving a one week suspension for a boot on the head, which was seen as lenient by a lot of rugby fans.
The minimum entry point for striking is two weeks, five for mid range, and eight plus for more severe. With the All Blacks facing England next, chances are Hore won't be taking part.
The 34 year-old will face a disciplinary hearing of which the date is yet to be made public.
Davies has been ruled out of Wales' next match against Australia after suffeing severe concussion.
- Do you think the result would have been different if Hore had been red carded?
- How lengthy a ban do you think he should get?
- Should Davies have been penalised for obstructive running?
UPDATE: Hore has been suspended for 5 weeks.
Credit: BBC and Scrum V
Posted at 2:30 pm | 178 comments
|
Related Posts
Wales score bizarre try with thirteen man lineout
Adam Thomson's boot on Alasdair Strokosch's head
Bradley Davies & Stephen Ferris controversial tackles
Andrew Hore asks if they're allowed to tackle Dan Carter
Jerome Kaino's huge tackle on Bradley Davies
Posted in Big Hits & Dirty Play
|
|
Viewing 178 comments
BarryT November 26, 2012 6:33 pm
Has to be a red card, i didn't see the match but from the clip i didn't see any obstructive running from davies, if that's Hore's alabi! That has to be 8 weeks at least, so unnecessary!
matt November 26, 2012 7:04 pm
You might want to watch the clip again then mate, that was about as blatant as obstructive running can be.
Not that that in any way changes what happened next
Not that that in any way changes what happened next
katman November 26, 2012 9:19 pm
Obstructive running? No one's going to take that seriously. You're probably just trying to wind people up anyway.
GraceOfBod November 27, 2012 1:28 am
No sympathy for Bardley Davies after what he did to Donncha Ryan in the 2012 six nations.
BarryT November 28, 2012 12:53 am
But Davies wasn't even looking at Hore! Anyway there's absolutely no need for a swinging arm up that high regardless!
This comment has been removed
matt November 29, 2012 5:15 pm
I just watched the six nations incident and you're right, Davies deserves zero sympathy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6xxo75RkCw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6xxo75RkCw
DanKnapp December 04, 2012 4:29 pm
It would be great if you got more lenient bans on the grounds of 'making contact with the head/neck of a bell-end'. Until then, I think we should simply ban both players for a decent amount of time.
Andy November 26, 2012 6:36 pm
Should be suspended, it wasn't that bad though. He didn't connect properly and i don't think it did the damage, i think that was his knee as he fell on him joining the ruck.
RamRugby10 November 26, 2012 8:10 pm
Didn't connect properly?! So he missed his neck now did he? The one part of the body which just about every safety precaution law that has been implemented into the games lawbook since its inception is serving to protect... Dunno about that Andy
macmurchu November 27, 2012 11:08 am
What are you on about? The guy was out cold before he hit the deck. Muppet. Kiwi I take it?
dcfurie November 26, 2012 6:39 pm
I'm still in disbelief that no Samoans were cited after the Wales-Samoa match- there were at least 3 swinging arms plus the Wales player begin dragged out of a ruck by his neck. I don't think of Hore as a dirty player but there doesn't seem to be anything accidental to what the video shows.
Oliver November 27, 2012 10:42 am
well they did the same against France. (swinging arm to Mermoz, Pape being strangled in a ruck.....). Hope they'll be cited!
EnglishBornSamoan November 29, 2012 12:37 pm
Their not swinging arms. They are wrapping their arms around the player with power. They don't go into tackles with strong shoulders and no arms, thats illegal. They don't tackle with strong shoulders and weak arms, beacause they will fall off the tackle. They don't tackle with strong shoulders and just the right amount of arm wrapping strength because thats normal and thats what most teams do. The Pacific Island teams use their strong shoulders and powerful arms because thats their strength, 'physicality'. Wales couldn't handle it. Pacific Island teams don't go out intending to hit the head. Yes they can miss their target but thats rugby. Accidents happen with all the hype and aggression. In every game their are accidental head knocks and if yu don't like it, go player soccer for goodness sake. Northen Hemisphere you need to harden up! Thats why the SH teams have been top 3 for years. Stop crying and be physical back! France almost beat the All Blacks last year because they gave the physical game back to them. Take a cup of concrete Northen Hemisphere.
This comment has been removed
Sienc November 26, 2012 6:44 pm
2 week or 8 week ban, what's the difference? SH season is over after next week and he won't play until March anyway! Bans should be issued in a number of matches, not weeks.
Would the result have been different? Who knows, NZ would have had to take a back row player off to replace the hooker. As it was Wales had to replace 2 front 5 players after 2 minutes - that will disrupt any team.
Would the result have been different? Who knows, NZ would have had to take a back row player off to replace the hooker. As it was Wales had to replace 2 front 5 players after 2 minutes - that will disrupt any team.
Jimothy November 26, 2012 8:34 pm
I know it says weeks but it does actually mean games. If Hore is cited then he may well miss the beginning of next seasons Super Rugby. That's according to the New Zealand Herald anyway!
Eggman November 27, 2012 12:57 am
That depends, sometime it means "effective weeks" (e.g. Higginbotham got two effective weeks for his knee on McCaw but was actually banned for four weeks), and sometimes it means weeks (e.g. Etzebeth got two weeks for his headbut on Sharpe but only missed one game)..
I think it lies within the judiciary to determine whether it's effective weeks or just weeks.
I think it lies within the judiciary to determine whether it's effective weeks or just weeks.
Pretzel November 26, 2012 6:49 pm
Well...The problem for me is this talk of bans.. yes players should get banned for this stuff, but a ban should be the END result, not the only result. I have to ask what the touch judges were looking at? This surely is going to be used in the case for bringing in the TMO for in play infringements...
Would the result be different? Hard to say, NZ could probably beat most teams with only 12 players on their team, but this was the very first minute of the game, and asking a reduced pack to scrum against a heavy bunch for 79 minutes would definitely take it's toll. Wales would opt for scrums in the hope of gaining further penalties, NZ bodies would get more and more tired trying to cover the loss. I assume they'd take off a back or a flanker and bring on a replacement front row, so you lose a key runner in the game regardless...then NZ would have to make a decision on whether to add a player to the scrum or keep a player out of the scrum, so I dare say it could have been Wales best chance to get a win over them.
I do severely doubt this was pre-planned. To suggest it was pre planned is basically saying NZ PLANNED to play an entire match with only 14 players, because there is no way this thing can guarantee no red card.... I think this was simply a frustrated pumped up player losing his head... (and trying to make BD lose his..)
I do however think BD should have been penalised for his obstructing running, I know that it is probably a hard one to police, but it was not like a lazy runner, he was properly getting in the way, but what AH did is not excusable...
Overall though, to me, the incident itself is not the focal point, to me it is the fact that any player could do this and not receive any punishment on the pitch, I am definitely an advocate for the TMO involvement where it counts, and this is clearly a "where it counts" incident...
Bradley Davies - BD... Brian O'Driscoll - BOD - BD for short? Maybe there is a conspiracy...
Would the result be different? Hard to say, NZ could probably beat most teams with only 12 players on their team, but this was the very first minute of the game, and asking a reduced pack to scrum against a heavy bunch for 79 minutes would definitely take it's toll. Wales would opt for scrums in the hope of gaining further penalties, NZ bodies would get more and more tired trying to cover the loss. I assume they'd take off a back or a flanker and bring on a replacement front row, so you lose a key runner in the game regardless...then NZ would have to make a decision on whether to add a player to the scrum or keep a player out of the scrum, so I dare say it could have been Wales best chance to get a win over them.
I do severely doubt this was pre-planned. To suggest it was pre planned is basically saying NZ PLANNED to play an entire match with only 14 players, because there is no way this thing can guarantee no red card.... I think this was simply a frustrated pumped up player losing his head... (and trying to make BD lose his..)
I do however think BD should have been penalised for his obstructing running, I know that it is probably a hard one to police, but it was not like a lazy runner, he was properly getting in the way, but what AH did is not excusable...
Overall though, to me, the incident itself is not the focal point, to me it is the fact that any player could do this and not receive any punishment on the pitch, I am definitely an advocate for the TMO involvement where it counts, and this is clearly a "where it counts" incident...
Bradley Davies - BD... Brian O'Driscoll - BOD - BD for short? Maybe there is a conspiracy...
LlyrD November 28, 2012 4:40 pm
Bradley davies penalised for obstruction? Have you played a game of rugby in your life?
Pretzel November 28, 2012 7:57 pm
Yes I have, have you? You are aware that obstructing a runner is "illegal" aren't you?.. This isn't American Football..
stereo_mike November 26, 2012 6:49 pm
I think if you look at the number of citings and incidents that are not picked up in the last 12 months or so (internationally).the vast majority are from southern hemisphere. But I think the real problem here is how New Zealand are treated by both the IRB on and off the field. The incident in the scotland game with the boot the head was so so very dangerous, say if his stud opened up the jugular vein in his neck it could have gotten very serious but only a 1 game ban.if something substantial isnt done for this case, where does the line get drawn? what if kids start going around emulating these guys and you have kids standing on other kids heads and throwing cheap shot punches. The IRb have to stop protecting Brand All Blacks and treat them the same as every other side
James H November 26, 2012 6:50 pm
Seeing as Thomson got one week for several punches and a stamp to the head Hore will just be told not to do it again.
Mnty November 27, 2012 12:06 am
Several punches...what game were you watching champ?
jamesH November 27, 2012 12:41 am
NZ v Scotland, you can even see the incident on here: http://www.rugbydump.com/2012/11/2842/all-black-adam-thomsons-boot-on-alasdair-strokoschs-head
Minty November 27, 2012 12:53 am
Seen it many times thanks, but again... what punches are you seeing champ?
Not to mention even the player Thomson did that too endorsed that it was nothing and he didn't even notice....
Not to mention even the player Thomson did that too endorsed that it was nothing and he didn't even notice....
Minty November 27, 2012 1:02 am
wow.... rugby has people like you watching it... that is sadder for the game than both incidents combined .
Keenan7 November 26, 2012 6:54 pm
ya know it is one thing to swing at a player... but another to do it from behind. This should have been a red on the spot. And I agree 8 weeks ATLEAST! That was just uncalled for and disgusting. I watched the match saturday, and after seeing this, I almost didn't want to watch anymore.
Everyone who has played rugby knows that things can get a bit cheeky when youre in face to face with the opposition, and a swing like thatcould happen spur of the moment, but to do it coming up behind on someone, it has to be premeditated, purely malicious.
Everyone who has played rugby knows that things can get a bit cheeky when youre in face to face with the opposition, and a swing like thatcould happen spur of the moment, but to do it coming up behind on someone, it has to be premeditated, purely malicious.
Keenan7 November 26, 2012 6:58 pm
And as far as the match result being different? You can never call that, but like Pretzel said, Wales wouldve have a major upperhand. The Welsh are physical and scrappy, and wernt backing down from NZ. If Nz was missing a player from their pack, the remaining 7 wouldve been worn down throughout the remaining 79 minutes by the Welsh. Welsh killed them with the pick and go's, so imagine doing that against a worn and ragged NZ pack.
If the result wasnt differnt, it atleast wouldnt have been such a one-sided game.
If the result wasnt differnt, it atleast wouldnt have been such a one-sided game.
faye123 November 26, 2012 7:07 pm
It was quite clearly a cheap shot he knew he was there he touched his back before he swung. And at bradley davies great hight an arm wlil not naturally swing that high. The game would have been so different Davies was crucial in the scrum and line out. Hope Hore gets a severe punishment as the game doesnt appreciate things like this, not setting a good example for the young aspiring players. Especially as world number ones. They should know better. If they let Hore off lightly then i expect the union to get some grief as said above he's still in a pretty bad way after 2 days of the match then it is a serious problem.
ARGIE November 26, 2012 7:09 pm
in my opinion,the red card isn't a thing to be disscused,because the agression of Hore is not accidentally,and if the referee saw the stiffarm the match would be really diferent,Here in Argentina something similar suceeded and the ban was for 4 months,and i think that the ban for hore it would be similar,and it has to start when the Super XV starts,this is my opinion...
here i put the link of the case of Argentina
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JOrBqHGoiw
here i put the link of the case of Argentina
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JOrBqHGoiw
Guy November 26, 2012 9:19 pm
That looked just as nasty so I agree that a 4 month ban would be a good starting point.
Paul M November 26, 2012 7:14 pm
Its not the first time hes done it, he took out a Northern Transvaal player with a punch from behind a few years ago as well No place for it in the game
Papillon November 26, 2012 7:15 pm
Frankly, that has nothing to do in today's rugby (maybe 30 years ago...). Given the consequences to Davies, I'd hope for tens of weeks of suspension but I must be dreaming... he's an All Black after all
Guy November 26, 2012 9:17 pm
Well, that moustache definitely makes him look like a player from the 70's.
Colombes November 26, 2012 7:25 pm
First point, let's be direct,
it was intentional, brutal and a bit coward by Hore!
and he'll be rightly cited for that, even if he won't really care a lot as the SH season is already finished :/
Second point, i'm a bit annoyed by the successive improvised trials on TV by Skysports.The last cases of Etzebeth and Thomson were treated in very biased way by some medias (even if the Thomson sanction was maybe too light) and i would prefer to see journalists or consultants having an "impartial" and "wait and see" posture than: the usuals "oh yeah, let's ban him", "the commission should have a look at it" or "remember o'driscoll" (comon...)
Zinzan Brooke seemed speechless at a moment and i quite understand him.
As a french fan, i've always watched french teams and players being victims of these kind of witchcraft (rightly or wrongly) and i still don't understand this kind of stuff whatever the nationality of the player...
There are not countries specialised in the arts of cheapshots, but there are maybe teams who escape more than others, but that's another debate
it was intentional, brutal and a bit coward by Hore!
and he'll be rightly cited for that, even if he won't really care a lot as the SH season is already finished :/
Second point, i'm a bit annoyed by the successive improvised trials on TV by Skysports.The last cases of Etzebeth and Thomson were treated in very biased way by some medias (even if the Thomson sanction was maybe too light) and i would prefer to see journalists or consultants having an "impartial" and "wait and see" posture than: the usuals "oh yeah, let's ban him", "the commission should have a look at it" or "remember o'driscoll" (comon...)
Zinzan Brooke seemed speechless at a moment and i quite understand him.
As a french fan, i've always watched french teams and players being victims of these kind of witchcraft (rightly or wrongly) and i still don't understand this kind of stuff whatever the nationality of the player...
There are not countries specialised in the arts of cheapshots, but there are maybe teams who escape more than others, but that's another debate
Facepalm November 26, 2012 7:37 pm
I'd far rather hear an honest journalistic opinion than a sit-on-the fence safety first approach. Otherwise what is the point in the journalists? If there is an act clearly as malicious as this is, what do you expect?
Also not sure what you mean by witchcraft. Are you implying that players are given lengthier bans because of the media? I would probably agree with you on that one. Although that is the fault of the IRB as opposed to the media.
Also not sure what you mean by witchcraft. Are you implying that players are given lengthier bans because of the media? I would probably agree with you on that one. Although that is the fault of the IRB as opposed to the media.
JG November 26, 2012 9:53 pm
The problem with your comment is "honest journalistic opinion", there is only ever a bias journalistic opinion. The reality is, England are one of the worst when it comes to extreme bias journalism, and with what happened in the Thomson affair, they now seem to be able to sway the IRB, which is dangerous teritory.
There is no doubt that what Hore did was plain stupid, and I hope the IRB give him a lengthy ban. However, to have the English press start labelling the All Blacks as thugs, when they have a long list of candidates themselves is a bit rich.
There is no doubt that what Hore did was plain stupid, and I hope the IRB give him a lengthy ban. However, to have the English press start labelling the All Blacks as thugs, when they have a long list of candidates themselves is a bit rich.
macmurchu November 27, 2012 11:17 am
Yeah I reckon Zinzan was cornered a bit. The BBC guy was quite accusing in his approach, saying a lot of people here working for the BBC are welsh, this is disgraceful, to a guy who is from the minority and part of the away team. I think Brook didn't know how to take it and wouldn't be surprised if he gave your man a smack of camera afterwards!
Nemo34 November 27, 2012 1:30 pm
Ugly hit. I would recommend a heavy ban as the gesture is obviously intentionnal, that it results in a commotion and that no apparent excuse or alibi may be provided. Yes, Davis ran in front of Hore but so what. I strikes me is that this aggression occurs less than 2 minutes in the game. There is no history of violence between these 2 players, no vengence, no ball in play, no foul play, nothing. It's brutal and it should be punished adequately
Most of the remarks here are about all-blacks legendary genetic rightness. ABs being nice and sweet and exemplary ambassadors of rugby values. Rugby gods cannot be wrong, cannot cheat, cannot eye-goug and so on. We shall see. Whatever IRB verdict is, Hore should be ruled out of the AB squad whatever his value as a player is. If not, I will definitely see ABs a different way.
Most of the remarks here are about all-blacks legendary genetic rightness. ABs being nice and sweet and exemplary ambassadors of rugby values. Rugby gods cannot be wrong, cannot cheat, cannot eye-goug and so on. We shall see. Whatever IRB verdict is, Hore should be ruled out of the AB squad whatever his value as a player is. If not, I will definitely see ABs a different way.
joeythelemur November 27, 2012 5:15 pm
Where exactly are the comments referring to the "all-blacks legendary genetic rightness" and "ABs being nice and sweet and exemplary ambassadors of rugby values"?? Sounds like a bit of projection on your part to say that "most of the remarks here" are somehow excusing what Hore has done. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nearly everyone here feels it was inexcusable and worthy of a lengthy ban.
Jonathan Sayer November 26, 2012 7:42 pm
It is clear to see that Davies got in the way of Hore joining the ruck. This may have been a penalty. Which of course would have been reversed with the red card for Hore.
However that is not the issue here. Hore has taken the player off the ball, from behind, unprovoked with a straight arm. He will be banned, of course he will, but personally I think this sort of behaviour merits more serious sanctions. It is disgusting. If I was the All Black selector, I would find it very difficult to re select Hore after an incident like this. God knows there is a more than plentiful supply of world class hookers playing in NZ and frankly I couldn't see myself playing a player who is a liability.
He didn't get caught so they weren't down to 14 men. Would they have lost if they had been? Possibly. And it would have been down to Andrew Hore being dirty and cowardly.
However that is not the issue here. Hore has taken the player off the ball, from behind, unprovoked with a straight arm. He will be banned, of course he will, but personally I think this sort of behaviour merits more serious sanctions. It is disgusting. If I was the All Black selector, I would find it very difficult to re select Hore after an incident like this. God knows there is a more than plentiful supply of world class hookers playing in NZ and frankly I couldn't see myself playing a player who is a liability.
He didn't get caught so they weren't down to 14 men. Would they have lost if they had been? Possibly. And it would have been down to Andrew Hore being dirty and cowardly.
Pretzel November 26, 2012 8:09 pm
The problem is though, is that if this had been McCaw doing it would you still not select him? You pick your best 15, and frankly Hore is a good player... So all you would do is penalise yourself. This borders into a video not long back where RD asked whether we think players should own up to things, yes in a dreamland of honour and gamesmanship that would be wonderful, but to own up would destroy the team and effectively cost money/rankings... So to not pick a player because of something he did which is bad would be shooting yourself in the foot, unless of course this was an every game type of behaviour in which case it is a risky player to have on your team...
Jonathan Sayer November 26, 2012 9:24 pm
I would not want someone in my team bringing the game down to this level. So short answer to your question: I would not select a player for the foreseeable future after committing an offence like this. Regardless of how talented he may be.
Pretzel November 26, 2012 9:51 pm
I'm not saying you would be wrong, but clearly with that attitude you would (could) turn your number 1 team into whipping boys...
And considering everything is about having the win next to your name, managers/coaches etc do not follow your sentiments...
Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to state the sadness of the how important a win is REGARDLESS of anything...
And considering everything is about having the win next to your name, managers/coaches etc do not follow your sentiments...
Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to state the sadness of the how important a win is REGARDLESS of anything...
Jonathan Sayer November 26, 2012 10:06 pm
I understand your viewpoint. It is a profession and points mean prizes. However I think punishments being doled out by the team staff as well as the citing committee may be more effective on clamping down on this behaviour.
conor November 26, 2012 9:58 pm
I think the concept that escapes you is...integrity.
Pretzel November 26, 2012 11:02 pm
Integrity is fine, I believe in it, and I do believe that teams should punish their own players PROPERLY but do you honestly think that unless teams are forced to by some governing body that all the fans are going to say, "yeh well done, you scrapped our best player because he did something nasty and now we lost" etc... I can see the bigger picture as do many of you, but guys with targets to meet and fans that want bragging rights are the ones that will carry the biggest clout and voice...
conor November 26, 2012 11:12 pm
in our time on this planet we have the opportunity to try to make the world a better place to live in or we just go along willfully blind to the injustice around us. In most cases we fail to effect meaningful change but in my book it is better than doing nothing...like pandering to that element of the rugby public that you believe "carry the biggest clout and voice". Integrity means that you rise above those that don't have integrity as opposed to joining them.
Pretzel November 27, 2012 1:32 am
Conor, either you fail to understand me or you are simply explaining your point because I agree with you, however last time I checked I was not Graham Henry, I was not Stuart Lancaster, I was not Warren Gatland, and indeed I am not Heyneke Meye, so to preach to me about not including players is fine but I'm the wrong person. I agree that coaches should sideline players like Hore, Burger, Botha, Cudmore, and every other "dirty player" but the reality is that they would be fielding a second string side. If it was a dictatorship where whatever a coach says goes then fine, but he wouldn't have much of a personal career after his contract runs out, but as it is, if he doesn't produce "the goods" or NZ drop from 1st to 3rd in a matter of months then massive questions are going to be asked as to why the coach does not field the Hore's, the Botha's, the Burger's etc when quite frankly they are some of the best players out there when their heads are on properly...
matt November 27, 2012 5:48 pm
Although he was far from the best player Danny Care was excluded from the England squad for around a year (I think) for his various pieces of deplorable behaviour. Most of which I believe were off the field.
Jonathan Sayer November 27, 2012 9:00 pm
I think NZ have the opportunity to set an example now. They are in the privileged position that they CAN select another top class hooker without detriment to the team. I'm not saying this will happen, I'm saying it should happen to keep the game clean and safe.
brolly21 November 26, 2012 7:43 pm
It's simple really, if you're the best team in the world, cheating would not occur to you you'd just win by being the best. All Blacks have always behaved this way with Wales running a close second!
rugby123 November 26, 2012 7:51 pm
absolutely disgusting. id like to see him try it when Bradley Davies knows hes coming. Coward
BackRowBulldozer November 26, 2012 7:54 pm
Hore gave an absolute cheap shot here, give him 8 playing weeks of a ban I say... Garbage like that gives the game a bad name.
Pretzel November 26, 2012 7:58 pm
I'm sorry to say that I disagree with people on Thomson's incident, there was never any danger of "opening a jugular vein" as someone has stated, it was not an uncontrolled stamp of great rage, if Thomson had stamped with the same fearsome attitude like that guy who kneed a player in the head a month or so back then we'd be looking at a nasty mess that was Strokosch head/face, but there was never any danger of nasty injury, much like the Etzebeth headbutt... yeh, sure, ban them both for daft behaviour but don't try and dream it up too much with the "what if's"... The two incidents were both in the control of the offending player, if EE wanted to smash Sharpes face then he could of done, but it was a provocative nudge. Same as Thomson on Strokosch, if he'd wanted to he could have destroyed Strokosch but he didn't, so less of the what if's... In my opinion Thomson and Hore's indiscretions are not comparable, I'd happily take one of Thomsons boots to the noggin every game for a year if it meant not having to face one of Hore's stiff arms!
BarryT November 28, 2012 1:08 am
I agree there wasn't much malice in the Thomson incident but putting boot to head at any force with intention is a risky business and at least yellow card, its reckless and unnecessary, and by only giving a 1 week ban its nearly justifying (please don't take that out of context!) that technique to clear a player off the ball, what do you think?
Pretzel November 28, 2012 6:02 am
It doesn't work for me I'm afraid.
Provided the views are all perfectly clear, if a referee gives a player a yellow card then that player should NOT receive a ban, if the "crime" is bad enough to warrant a ban then it should warrant a red card:
Naughty = Penalty
Very Naughty = Yellow card
Bad = Red card
Very Bad = Red card and ban
For me, the only way a ban should be connected is through a red card, of course this is of course the perfect world where referee's see things perfectly (I understand that if a player doesn't quite see an incident then its different)
I get what you're saying but personally I believe that if a player receives a penalty for a "crime" then THAT itself is stating that the behaviour is not acceptable. A yellow states the behaviour is definitely not acceptable, so on through the various degrees of punishment. I agree what Thomson did was risky and of course it has the possibility to promote other players to attempt the same thing. Perhaps it was not as nasty due to the scrumcap, maybe it would look much more horrific if it was studs on skin/hair etc. However (I can't be 100% on this) I severely doubt that Thomson would have done it if there was no scrum cap, because there was no malice...
Provided the views are all perfectly clear, if a referee gives a player a yellow card then that player should NOT receive a ban, if the "crime" is bad enough to warrant a ban then it should warrant a red card:
Naughty = Penalty
Very Naughty = Yellow card
Bad = Red card
Very Bad = Red card and ban
For me, the only way a ban should be connected is through a red card, of course this is of course the perfect world where referee's see things perfectly (I understand that if a player doesn't quite see an incident then its different)
I get what you're saying but personally I believe that if a player receives a penalty for a "crime" then THAT itself is stating that the behaviour is not acceptable. A yellow states the behaviour is definitely not acceptable, so on through the various degrees of punishment. I agree what Thomson did was risky and of course it has the possibility to promote other players to attempt the same thing. Perhaps it was not as nasty due to the scrumcap, maybe it would look much more horrific if it was studs on skin/hair etc. However (I can't be 100% on this) I severely doubt that Thomson would have done it if there was no scrum cap, because there was no malice...
Ottawa Rugger November 26, 2012 8:19 pm
Punching a player from behind, attempted or otherwise, can an should get a lengthy ban. If it doesn't the furor over Thomson's ban will look like child's play.
for the record, yes, Davies was being a lazy runner. That's for the referee to decide and penalize. Not Hore. And the ref would have done it without striking someone from behind like a sissy.
And by the way, it looks like Hore also drops his knee on Davies' head. I'd like to see him explain that away. Unlikely he both struck Davies' neck and head from behind with his arm and then again with his knee "accidentally" while entering the ruck
for the record, yes, Davies was being a lazy runner. That's for the referee to decide and penalize. Not Hore. And the ref would have done it without striking someone from behind like a sissy.
And by the way, it looks like Hore also drops his knee on Davies' head. I'd like to see him explain that away. Unlikely he both struck Davies' neck and head from behind with his arm and then again with his knee "accidentally" while entering the ruck
Bunn November 26, 2012 8:23 pm
It was clearly the swinging arm that knocked him out as he fell completely limp and hit the ground face first with no attempt to break his fall
Ted the slacker November 26, 2012 8:27 pm
Main point of interest with incident will be how loudly the usual Kiwi fanboys complain.
It was a filthy cheap shot, even if Bradley Davies was in his way, and would have been red had the ref seen it. But when this sort of thing happens, your usual Kiwi response, fanned by the local media, is along the lines of "Andrew Hore is such a good bloke, clean-to-a-fault with a perfect disciplinary record, spends his spare time nursing puppies to full health, the idea he could have done anything wrong is an OUTRAGE". And eventually the braying gets the culprit something less than a slap on the wrist - as happened with Kevan Mealamu a couple of years back.
To be fair though, Chris Rattue has not only called it what it was, but also unloaded on the Kiwi commentators out for being complete morons in their reaction.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/best-of-sport-analysis/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502180&objectid=10849889
The fanboys however are out in force in the comments.
It was a filthy cheap shot, even if Bradley Davies was in his way, and would have been red had the ref seen it. But when this sort of thing happens, your usual Kiwi response, fanned by the local media, is along the lines of "Andrew Hore is such a good bloke, clean-to-a-fault with a perfect disciplinary record, spends his spare time nursing puppies to full health, the idea he could have done anything wrong is an OUTRAGE". And eventually the braying gets the culprit something less than a slap on the wrist - as happened with Kevan Mealamu a couple of years back.
To be fair though, Chris Rattue has not only called it what it was, but also unloaded on the Kiwi commentators out for being complete morons in their reaction.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/best-of-sport-analysis/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502180&objectid=10849889
The fanboys however are out in force in the comments.
Reality November 26, 2012 8:42 pm
Wow, I'm pleasantly surprised at his honesty and objectivity. I, like many others, didn't think that complaints from a New Zealander about an All Black were possible. And in fairness, most of those comments (at least the ones there when I read them) condemn Hore and ask that he be kicked off the team. It's refreshing to see. Even if there are some one-eyed idiots. I wish Jim Mallinder would take a leaf from Chris's book over the Callum Clark incident.
ChillDoubt November 26, 2012 8:27 pm
Some of the talk on here about the obstructive running is frankly laughable. That sort of running by Davies goes on in every game of rugby at every level during every high ball, to one degree or another.
What DOESN'T happen is every player subsequently takes the law into their own hands and blindsides their opponent with a cheap, filthy shot from behind.
It's impossible to say that Wales would have beaten the AB's follwing what would have been an obvious sending off but 15 v 14 for 79 minutes would have been interesting!
Hore has been vivlified back in NZ and is still considered persona no grata by many after his previous misdemeanour away from the rugby field.
He ought to get a lengthy ban but I doubt it would bother the type of human being who shoots a defenceless, protected species with a shotgun for 'fun'.
What DOESN'T happen is every player subsequently takes the law into their own hands and blindsides their opponent with a cheap, filthy shot from behind.
It's impossible to say that Wales would have beaten the AB's follwing what would have been an obvious sending off but 15 v 14 for 79 minutes would have been interesting!
Hore has been vivlified back in NZ and is still considered persona no grata by many after his previous misdemeanour away from the rugby field.
He ought to get a lengthy ban but I doubt it would bother the type of human being who shoots a defenceless, protected species with a shotgun for 'fun'.
Pretzel November 26, 2012 10:01 pm
Chilldoubt, I don't know why you would snuff the "obstructive running"... yes it happens in every game, as does hands in the rucks and lying on the ball... they are all classed under "CHEATING"... No one is saying BD was a cheat and deserves it, they are simply saying "well if one had to give a reason for Hores, gross overreaction, then one would probably highlight the direction, or many directions that Bradley Davies was running in, thus preventing Hore from getting to the breakdown quickly"
It does not mean that we condone the actions of Hore, it just means that we can see where he gathered that frustration from..
It is, of course, inexcusable..
It does not mean that we condone the actions of Hore, it just means that we can see where he gathered that frustration from..
It is, of course, inexcusable..
browner November 27, 2012 1:57 am
buy him a beer & laugh about it Pretzel...... a good old fashinoed slogging is part of the mans game you espouse so often ....? or have you developed a nancy noballs side?
Reality November 26, 2012 8:32 pm
Yeah, I agree with pretty much everyone here. I'm not a fan of obstructive runners, but if it happens, give them a shove; don't box them in the side of the head from behind and send them to the hospital. Terrible, cowardly, ugly behaviour, and it's outrageous that he probably won't even miss any matches because the season is over.
I don't like the way the analysts branded New Zealand rugby as having this dirty, dark side to it though. I mean, in my opinion they're the biggest cheats in world rugby, so it's not like they're angels, but you can't just take three incidents of violent behaviour which happened in the space of seven years and say that there's a violent streak to New Zealand rugby. These kind of things unfortunately happen quite often involving players from South Africa, France, and the Pacific Islands, and to a lesser extent the rest of the world as well. Even Bradley Davies himself was banned fairly recently for picking up Donnacha Ryan and throwing him down on his head without provocation. Generalising New Zealand rugby players as violent because of these few instances is just ridiculous in my opinion. I mean Bakkies Botha and Jamie Cudmore for example have probably been in more trouble than the whole of New Zealand rugby.
I remember when Dan Carter high tackled a Welsh scrumhalf a few years ago, and the BBC blew the whole thing out of proportion and pretty much demanded an apology from him. They seem to have a problem with keeping things in perspective.
I don't like the way the analysts branded New Zealand rugby as having this dirty, dark side to it though. I mean, in my opinion they're the biggest cheats in world rugby, so it's not like they're angels, but you can't just take three incidents of violent behaviour which happened in the space of seven years and say that there's a violent streak to New Zealand rugby. These kind of things unfortunately happen quite often involving players from South Africa, France, and the Pacific Islands, and to a lesser extent the rest of the world as well. Even Bradley Davies himself was banned fairly recently for picking up Donnacha Ryan and throwing him down on his head without provocation. Generalising New Zealand rugby players as violent because of these few instances is just ridiculous in my opinion. I mean Bakkies Botha and Jamie Cudmore for example have probably been in more trouble than the whole of New Zealand rugby.
I remember when Dan Carter high tackled a Welsh scrumhalf a few years ago, and the BBC blew the whole thing out of proportion and pretty much demanded an apology from him. They seem to have a problem with keeping things in perspective.
Oliver November 27, 2012 4:22 pm
Please explain why you put France in that category.
I personnally think French teams used to lack discipline, but that was decades ago. Also a time when most French players did not speak english and did not understand the referee at all.
To me the French record in recent years is not worse that that of the AB's. For instance, the O'Driscoll incident is actually worse than the Rougerie eye-gouge I think...
(yeah I'm french I know, biased.....so prove me wrong!)
I personnally think French teams used to lack discipline, but that was decades ago. Also a time when most French players did not speak english and did not understand the referee at all.
To me the French record in recent years is not worse that that of the AB's. For instance, the O'Driscoll incident is actually worse than the Rougerie eye-gouge I think...
(yeah I'm french I know, biased.....so prove me wrong!)
Reality November 27, 2012 8:30 pm
Well, it's a lot better than it was in the past, but it still seems to be a much bigger problem in France than in Britain or Ireland for example. There are all sorts of videos of enormous D2 fights where everyone just goes crazy and does their best to hurt whoever is beside them. And everybody still argues about Julien Dupuy and David Attoub, so their eye-gouging is impossible to forget about. As well, I can't find a video of it, but I remember that the Northampton vs Bourgoin Challenge Cup final descended into chaos a few years ago, and several Bourgoin players just started attacking Northampton ones, which simply doesn't happen elsewhere in top-level rugby. As well, Montpellier played Northampton a few years ago and got two red cards in the one game, which I don't think I've ever seen anywhere else.
In fairness though, a lot of bad 'French' behaviour is actually just bad foreign players playing in France, e.g. Cudmore and Delon Armitage.
And at least in international rugby and the bigger French clubs it's not a big problem.
I think though that the supporters give the impression that French rugby has a violent side to it. There are loads of French fans who always complain about conspiracies regarding punishment for French players, and they defend people like Dupuy and Attoub, and for example complained when that Toulouse player (I can't remember his name) got banned for picking up Semenzato and throwing him head-first into the ground. It gives the impression that violence and thuggery are acceptable and encouraged in French rugby (which isn't true (at least I hope it's not)).
In fairness though, a lot of bad 'French' behaviour is actually just bad foreign players playing in France, e.g. Cudmore and Delon Armitage.
And at least in international rugby and the bigger French clubs it's not a big problem.
I think though that the supporters give the impression that French rugby has a violent side to it. There are loads of French fans who always complain about conspiracies regarding punishment for French players, and they defend people like Dupuy and Attoub, and for example complained when that Toulouse player (I can't remember his name) got banned for picking up Semenzato and throwing him head-first into the ground. It gives the impression that violence and thuggery are acceptable and encouraged in French rugby (which isn't true (at least I hope it's not)).
Oliver November 28, 2012 10:30 am
thanks for taking the time to reply.
I guess I see where you're coming from. But I was thinking of the French national team, which has been pretty clean, in the last 10 years at least.
As for French fans, I dont think violence is encouraged but we're often a bit paranoid I'll admit! But that doesnt come out of nowhere either. For decades France was the only latin nation in a strictly anglo rugby world, so there were a lot of misunderstandings. And I do think a lot of clichés about French rugby are really unjustified. Diving divas, eye-gouging maniacs, it's all a bit much!
anyways I hope Hore never wears the NZ jersey again. If the AB's wish to be perceived as the ambassadors of rugby they think they are, they need to clean up their act.
I guess I see where you're coming from. But I was thinking of the French national team, which has been pretty clean, in the last 10 years at least.
As for French fans, I dont think violence is encouraged but we're often a bit paranoid I'll admit! But that doesnt come out of nowhere either. For decades France was the only latin nation in a strictly anglo rugby world, so there were a lot of misunderstandings. And I do think a lot of clichés about French rugby are really unjustified. Diving divas, eye-gouging maniacs, it's all a bit much!
anyways I hope Hore never wears the NZ jersey again. If the AB's wish to be perceived as the ambassadors of rugby they think they are, they need to clean up their act.
Jimothy November 26, 2012 8:44 pm
If this is what Davis deserves for lazy running then I think it is only fair that Mr MacOffside takes his low blows with a smile on his face! As for another discussion point, what about this article...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110938/The-shocking-moment-rugby-player-hit-teacher-opponent-hard-match-broke-jaw.html
Why does doing it on a rugby field make it OK?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110938/The-shocking-moment-rugby-player-hit-teacher-opponent-hard-match-broke-jaw.html
Why does doing it on a rugby field make it OK?
stroudos November 27, 2012 12:52 am
Is there any other link to the story? I will not click on links to the Daily mail, on general principle.
macmurchu November 27, 2012 11:35 am
But they've got hot girl links down the right hand side without being porn?
Calon Lan November 26, 2012 8:54 pm
Irrelevant of the shirts being worn this is a disgusting move by Hore, it's never a pleasant thing to see a player fall completely limp as happened here.
I'd expect a lengthy ban due to what happened but I'd also like to see the NZRU take action against Hore too as I think they really need to stand firm against things like this and also to be seen to stand against it.
All teams have responsibilities to the game but in particular the world champions and number one team.
I'd expect a lengthy ban due to what happened but I'd also like to see the NZRU take action against Hore too as I think they really need to stand firm against things like this and also to be seen to stand against it.
All teams have responsibilities to the game but in particular the world champions and number one team.
rufio November 26, 2012 9:08 pm
What was Hore thiking?? Did he really think he could get away with it?? How many cameras are there at a game of rugby these days??
There is no place for this in Rugby. I hope Bradley Davies presses charges. This is nothing short assault!! What would happen if you did this to someone in public??
There is no place for this in Rugby. I hope Bradley Davies presses charges. This is nothing short assault!! What would happen if you did this to someone in public??
FoXtroT November 26, 2012 9:13 pm
This is an incident comparable to Bakkies headbutt on Jimmy Cowan and so should warrent a similar ban.
Tedalicious November 26, 2012 9:25 pm
Can't help but wonder how every body would be crying if this was Bakkies Botha? It was a cheap shot even if there was obstructive running, no need for it. Really expect better.
katman November 26, 2012 9:44 pm
Three things: Firstly, comments about lazy or obstructive running are a joke. People do that in every game. If that's lazy running, then just about every ruck needs to be blown up for the same. I think people are just scraping the barrel for some kind of mitigation here.
And secondly, I believe Hore deliberately dropped his knee into Davis's head after knocking him down, and this is where the damage occurred. Look again at 1:54. Davis is clearly out cold before he slams into the turf, but then Hore drops his left knee solidly into Davis's temple area - he even seems to drop his knee quicker than would be necessary to join that ruck in order to connect with the head - and what happens to the neck and head in that picture is just horrible.
And finally, I don't think it's a coincidence that incidences like this and the O'Driscol spear happen in the opening passages of the game. The All Blacks are so pumped up from their Haka that the red mist is not far away. Screaming at your opponent that you're going to slit their throat and crush them just minutes earlier is not unrelated to this madness.
And secondly, I believe Hore deliberately dropped his knee into Davis's head after knocking him down, and this is where the damage occurred. Look again at 1:54. Davis is clearly out cold before he slams into the turf, but then Hore drops his left knee solidly into Davis's temple area - he even seems to drop his knee quicker than would be necessary to join that ruck in order to connect with the head - and what happens to the neck and head in that picture is just horrible.
And finally, I don't think it's a coincidence that incidences like this and the O'Driscol spear happen in the opening passages of the game. The All Blacks are so pumped up from their Haka that the red mist is not far away. Screaming at your opponent that you're going to slit their throat and crush them just minutes earlier is not unrelated to this madness.
Pretzel November 26, 2012 10:09 pm
I doubt anyone is trying to produce any mitigating circumstances, there is no excuse for this type of reaction, but HAD Hore just SHOVED Davies, we'd all say "yeh BD deserved it for his dubious running lines"...
It's not a case of BD deserved a forearm to the chops because he ran lazily, we are simply saying, thats obviously what sparked Hore to behave like such an out of control lunatic...
It's not a case of BD deserved a forearm to the chops because he ran lazily, we are simply saying, thats obviously what sparked Hore to behave like such an out of control lunatic...
browner November 27, 2012 1:44 am
we've all heard Pretzel is a fan of 'anything goes' as long as they share a giggle & a pint in the bar afterwards .....
or does pret... retain the ability to U turn when he chooses?
xx
or does pret... retain the ability to U turn when he chooses?
xx
Pretzel November 27, 2012 5:01 am
Browner, I believe comprehension is something you're severely lacking, so I'll try and include video examples as a way to try and help you.
So far we have disagreed on I believe 2 specific topics:
Strokosch - nudge to the noggin
Etzebeth - Manhandling a scotsman
You have called both those specific topics "thuggery".
- Now had Thomson done this (a simple youtube search and I found this just now, no time needed, it's obvious): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnE6wj7w8ZY
Then I would completely and wholeheartedly agree with you that it is blatant thuggery.
- Now had Etzebeth done this (again a simple youtube search shows up this at 0:22): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QYJII6Fh9s
Then again I would completely agree that it is "thuggery".
But frankly Thomson's effort is comparable with the 1:01 mark on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rJrZdhtJQ4
i.e. Against the laws, but hardly life threatening, it's not thuggery, due disciplinary processes will clear it up, but in theory the Thomson yellow card was all that is needed. In this case a red card (because of the letter of the law is right, and will teach Tom James to be a bit more careful)
This is not comparable with either Thomsons, or Etzebeths past indiscretions, not recent ones anyway, so no need to get your knickers in a twist, the rest of the world is not the same as you, most normal people don't deal with "all or nothing" when it comes to this stuff. There are degrees with this stuff, Thomson had no malice, Etzebeth had no malice, and this? Well according to your rules or opinion about me means that this must have no malice too? Or perhaps because I think this had malice that both Thomson and EE had malice too?
Get a grip you twit, if you honestly think there is anything remotely comparable then you don't deserve to be in any sort of coaching or referee position.
So far we have disagreed on I believe 2 specific topics:
Strokosch - nudge to the noggin
Etzebeth - Manhandling a scotsman
You have called both those specific topics "thuggery".
- Now had Thomson done this (a simple youtube search and I found this just now, no time needed, it's obvious): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnE6wj7w8ZY
Then I would completely and wholeheartedly agree with you that it is blatant thuggery.
- Now had Etzebeth done this (again a simple youtube search shows up this at 0:22): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QYJII6Fh9s
Then again I would completely agree that it is "thuggery".
But frankly Thomson's effort is comparable with the 1:01 mark on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rJrZdhtJQ4
i.e. Against the laws, but hardly life threatening, it's not thuggery, due disciplinary processes will clear it up, but in theory the Thomson yellow card was all that is needed. In this case a red card (because of the letter of the law is right, and will teach Tom James to be a bit more careful)
This is not comparable with either Thomsons, or Etzebeths past indiscretions, not recent ones anyway, so no need to get your knickers in a twist, the rest of the world is not the same as you, most normal people don't deal with "all or nothing" when it comes to this stuff. There are degrees with this stuff, Thomson had no malice, Etzebeth had no malice, and this? Well according to your rules or opinion about me means that this must have no malice too? Or perhaps because I think this had malice that both Thomson and EE had malice too?
Get a grip you twit, if you honestly think there is anything remotely comparable then you don't deserve to be in any sort of coaching or referee position.
JG November 26, 2012 10:17 pm
Please do not turn this into another haka debate, Your last sentence only shows your cultural ignorance.
joeythelemur November 26, 2012 10:35 pm
OK, I'll take the bait. You've mentioned the "red mist" regarding the haka a couple times, but I don't get it. The O'Driscoll incident was over 7 years ago and I can't think of another incident since then where something like this happened in the opening stages of the contest. The All Blacks have played about 100 tests since June 2005, performing the haka prior to each of those. Don't you think that there would be more than a 2% incident rate if the haka had such an effect?
katman November 26, 2012 10:34 pm
You can spare me the cultural angle. That's not going to work on me.
JG November 27, 2012 3:50 am
Katman, just stating the obvious. To blame the Hore incident on the Haka, is not only a very poor argument, but shows your extreme ignorance to any culture that chooses to perform a war cry before the game.
Benny November 26, 2012 10:52 pm
I can think of another incident in the opening minutes, the eye gouge vs the BI Lions.
Oh hang on, Schalk Burger plays for the Boks
Oh hang on, Schalk Burger plays for the Boks
Guest November 27, 2012 4:11 am
Agreed, katman, the knee does look deliberate. Why would he drop to a knee before hitting the ruck, i mean legitimately?
Pretzel November 26, 2012 10:10 pm
Actually, I think we've all jumped the gun a bit here...
I think we should let Hore off with just a warning, he has ONE cracking moustache and perhaps he had a nasty itch and so he brought his arm up very quickly to wipe his nose and big lumbering BD got his head in the way....
Plus you can hardly condemn a man who is sporting such a fantastic mo...
I think we should let Hore off with just a warning, he has ONE cracking moustache and perhaps he had a nasty itch and so he brought his arm up very quickly to wipe his nose and big lumbering BD got his head in the way....
Plus you can hardly condemn a man who is sporting such a fantastic mo...
Benny November 26, 2012 10:36 pm
Speaking of nasty itches and cracking moustaches, seems to me all this talk about Hore is taking focus away from the truly offensive moment in the match. What was Ben Franks thinking when he stood behind Cruden taking a shot at goal and grabbed his junk and had a play?! 31:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYv8-wiZaMA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYv8-wiZaMA
WAIKATO886 November 26, 2012 10:45 pm
I saw that too... HAHAHHA. Mustve been a dare to do it.. Lol. Or he has a thing for Crudens kicking style?... O_o
Pretzel November 26, 2012 11:12 pm
LMAO, well AB players have been known to lose certain aspects of their body from that area, so maybe he was just making sure he didn't join the likes of Buck Shelford...
I noticed the Haka had the throat slit gesture, I thought the AB's got in sh*t over that years ago, is it allowed again?
I noticed the Haka had the throat slit gesture, I thought the AB's got in sh*t over that years ago, is it allowed again?
joeythelemur November 27, 2012 4:14 am
Just the Kapa-O-Pango, which I guess they do about 1/3 of the time? And when it first came out, they tamped the furor down a bit by doing the gesture more across the chest, but no one seems to care so much now and it seems to have progressed back up toward the neck. I still prefer Ka Mate but to each his own.
Rugbydump November 27, 2012 10:52 am
Ballsy play (quick clip of it) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0gKMe4Me-U
WAIKATO886 November 26, 2012 10:31 pm
It was just a frustrated Hore letting his frustration out. But IMO, I dont think think he intended to hit his face... but he did. And cmon guys, everyone does a bit of obstruction running, its in every game. He should be banned for a couple of weeks. Boo hoo lets move on....
....SAMOA TOP 8.. YESSSS!!!! =)
....SAMOA TOP 8.. YESSSS!!!! =)
Oncewarrior5 November 26, 2012 10:38 pm
Looked alright to me cuz, wotz all the fuss about bros? Thats the dirtiest bit of lazy running I've ever seen ehh. Had it comin bro. Noone messes with the blacks!
stroudos November 27, 2012 12:55 am
Bloody hell it's Jake The Muss!!
About as much of a twat as him too.
About as much of a twat as him too.
Gonzoman November 26, 2012 11:09 pm
To take a page from another sport: in 2004, in ice hockey, a player sucker punched an opponent in a similar manner. There was massive public outcry, some people tried to defend him saying that he was just getting back for a nasty hit put on his team-mate. (Some of you North American types might know what I'm talking about...Todd Bertuzzi on Steve Moore. For the rest of you, here it is: http://youtu.be/kFVvLQU_cMo).
Bertuzzi (the "bad guy") was banned indefinitely, ultimately missing out on the remained of that season, as well as the entirety of the next season.
Sucker punches are dangerous, and the suits in the hockey world took a strong stand against it. IRB needs to do the same.
Make Hore take a year off.
Bertuzzi (the "bad guy") was banned indefinitely, ultimately missing out on the remained of that season, as well as the entirety of the next season.
Sucker punches are dangerous, and the suits in the hockey world took a strong stand against it. IRB needs to do the same.
Make Hore take a year off.
Blink November 27, 2012 2:39 am
Gonzoman, I do remember this quite well. There was wide disdain for the incident, and If I remember correctly Bertuzzi was tearing up in the press conference when talking about the incident and how he was remorseful.
I also agree that the IRB needs to take a stand against incidents such as this one. Comparably, the incidents are quite similar. A player has striked a defenseless player in the back of the head, resulting in said player left knocked out and defenseless. Steve Moore (the hockey player) actually broke his neck vertebrae, but who's to say that the same result couldn't have happened here?
They must do something about these incidents to prevent things like this happening over and over. Maybe a lengthy ban (upwards of 6 months) should be instated to send a clear message to players about this type of play. Understandably, there will probably be some grey area on whether it was intentional or not (IMO I think it's pretty clear that it was intentional, however I don't believe Hore meant to hurt him as bad as he did).
Without serious ramifications, we will continue to see incidents/injuries (sometimes life threatening) for the near future.
I also agree that the IRB needs to take a stand against incidents such as this one. Comparably, the incidents are quite similar. A player has striked a defenseless player in the back of the head, resulting in said player left knocked out and defenseless. Steve Moore (the hockey player) actually broke his neck vertebrae, but who's to say that the same result couldn't have happened here?
They must do something about these incidents to prevent things like this happening over and over. Maybe a lengthy ban (upwards of 6 months) should be instated to send a clear message to players about this type of play. Understandably, there will probably be some grey area on whether it was intentional or not (IMO I think it's pretty clear that it was intentional, however I don't believe Hore meant to hurt him as bad as he did).
Without serious ramifications, we will continue to see incidents/injuries (sometimes life threatening) for the near future.
joeythelemur November 27, 2012 4:21 am
Interesting comparison, as I remember this incident well. Very similar in that Bertuzzi knew what he was doing (it was retaliation actually for something Moore did in a previous game between their teams and Moore wouldn't agree to fight straight up) but certainly didn't intend to basically end Steve Moore's career, which was the ultimate result. Really a sad deal, especially since you consider the consequences to Moore's family, almost certainly lost millions of dollars and a career that he'd worked his whole life to achieve.
Certainly not justified and he's got to take whatever punishment is handed down, but I'd say Hore definitely didn't intend to send BD out of the game and to the hospital. Hore should sit for quite a while.
Certainly not justified and he's got to take whatever punishment is handed down, but I'd say Hore definitely didn't intend to send BD out of the game and to the hospital. Hore should sit for quite a while.
Nick November 26, 2012 11:29 pm
I was working in a bar a few years back and a bloke got punched in the head unawares.
It wasnt even a good punch but he had blood on the brain and is still in a coma. to this day.
I know hore didnt connect with his fist but the consequences of such a blow unprepared can be devastating.
No room for it. lengthy ban.
It wasnt even a good punch but he had blood on the brain and is still in a coma. to this day.
I know hore didnt connect with his fist but the consequences of such a blow unprepared can be devastating.
No room for it. lengthy ban.
Anon November 27, 2012 12:46 am
Really you say not that bad, what where you looking at? He hits him from behind giving no warning to Davies to protect himself. Also he caught right on the jaw with a forearm which can just as much damage as a punch and if you look closely he nearly out cold from the swinging arm, then the knee finished him off (which with the way the arm went I would nearly the knee was intentional) .
Bumbum November 27, 2012 1:39 am
Very well executed and rounded up cheap shot. Love how he hits the ruck right after flooring Davies. Give him 8 weeks in the bin.
Jeri November 27, 2012 3:28 am
Cynical and reckless behaviour from Hore if not malicious. Should've been a yellow card at least.
Frenchie November 27, 2012 6:23 am
- I don't think the result would have different with 14 AB on the pitch.
- Hopefully Hore will get a lengthy ban, 12 weeks minimum
- I don't think there's an obstructive running from Davies. Davies retreats towards the ruck, doing so you don't have to change your angle of running to let an opponent pass you, right? I don't think he changed his angle of running in a way to obstruct Hore; Hore had to go around him, found his way to the ruck in a legal way...so to speak.
Well, there's nothing legal there, cheap/coward punch.
- Hopefully Hore will get a lengthy ban, 12 weeks minimum
- I don't think there's an obstructive running from Davies. Davies retreats towards the ruck, doing so you don't have to change your angle of running to let an opponent pass you, right? I don't think he changed his angle of running in a way to obstruct Hore; Hore had to go around him, found his way to the ruck in a legal way...so to speak.
Well, there's nothing legal there, cheap/coward punch.
WAIKATO886 November 27, 2012 8:32 am
No obstructive running? Mate, BD kept turning back to impede his run... but then again everyone does that...
beast4president November 27, 2012 11:58 am
Don't think he intended to knock him out cold- lots of frustration cos of obstruction so maybe wanted to send him a message- as you do. Still maybe send him back to NZ to cool off, but I don't see anything massive in it. Heat of the moment- they're probably already having a laugh about it over some beers...
I'm seeing that NZ are a team that make cheating look unintentional (not having a dig, every team does it to an extent) and that's partly what makes them so good. Hats off to them- a well oiled machine! And so much depth in the squad
I'm seeing that NZ are a team that make cheating look unintentional (not having a dig, every team does it to an extent) and that's partly what makes them so good. Hats off to them- a well oiled machine! And so much depth in the squad
veji1 November 27, 2012 12:42 pm
It is an obvious red. Whether the result would have been different or not is moot. But this is an obviously malicious attack on a unsuspecting player. IN this sense it is worse than connecting punchs in a brawl where at least the other guy is ready.
Attoub got a year ban for eye gouging 2 years ago. i don't Know what Hore's past is and whether that should play a role, but to me the sanction should be between 6 months and a year.
This is was utterly despicable. Worse than a spear tackle or almost all other forms of foul play and on par with very thorough eye gouging.
You cannot just suspend him for the off season. he needs to at least not play the Super15 and for me a 1 year ban wouldn't shock me. Everything was there : malicious intent, surprise, etc... In no way this is a player overdoing a tackle or something like this, this is just purely heinous. Obstructive running or not this is deserves a massive ban.
Attoub got a year ban for eye gouging 2 years ago. i don't Know what Hore's past is and whether that should play a role, but to me the sanction should be between 6 months and a year.
This is was utterly despicable. Worse than a spear tackle or almost all other forms of foul play and on par with very thorough eye gouging.
You cannot just suspend him for the off season. he needs to at least not play the Super15 and for me a 1 year ban wouldn't shock me. Everything was there : malicious intent, surprise, etc... In no way this is a player overdoing a tackle or something like this, this is just purely heinous. Obstructive running or not this is deserves a massive ban.
Benny November 27, 2012 4:08 pm
yeah, ban him for a year, press charges, have him hanged. Or maybe take a breath and look at similar incidents and give him a similar punishment, e.g. Tuilagi getting 5 weeks for punching, Higgenbotham getting 2 matches for knee and headbutt, Fondse 1 week, Haskell 3 matches
Gonzoman November 27, 2012 4:29 pm
It's not quite the same as an attack from the front though...a punch from behind is a fair bit more dangerous.
Benny November 27, 2012 4:32 pm
Maybe if you're expecting it but none of the ones I mentioned were. I don't see why it makes a difference
Gonzoman November 27, 2012 8:15 pm
It makes a big difference: physiologically, humans are better adapted to taking impact from the front. The impact on this hit came from a direction to BD's right and back and connected with the side of his jaw and neck. The neck is least stable from side-to-side, and the jaw isn't designed to be forced sideways and away from the head. The skeletal structures of the head and neck and the soft tissue that surrounds them are much better suited to dealing with front-on impact.
veji1 November 27, 2012 5:37 pm
Look Benny, you might think I am overreacting, fair enough. But this to me is one of the worst type of offense that can happen on a pitch, on par with eye gouging. A spear tackle can to some extent be a loss of control, bad timing, etc... and at least the victim can contract all his muscles preparing for the shock. This was just a straight up punching (stiff arm or fist makes no difference) of an unsuspecting player... a few weeks is not by far an appropriate sanction... 3 months is the very very bare minimum, and from 6 months on it becomes a satisfactory sanction.
Again just my position, not pretending everybody has to agree.
Again just my position, not pretending everybody has to agree.
That Guy November 28, 2012 7:06 am
A stiff arm is nowhere near as bad as eye gouging or spear tackles, especially from behind. Eye gouges have the very real possibilty of causing a loss of sight, spear tackles can break necks. The worst (barring a horrendous freak accident) that would happen from what hore did happened with the player being knocked out. Dean Greyling got 2 weeks for flying, elbow cocked, at Richie Mccaws face. If Hore gets much more than that ill be very suprised.
FelipeG November 27, 2012 1:04 pm
Obviously malicious, straight red. Claim for damages in court. All this punching and cheap shot thing has to stop once and for all. Especially for a player of the best team, during a simple test match against a loosing weaker opponent.
Rugby is about power, fairness and self-control.
No matter if there is an obstructive running. Why push in the back or even avoid contact (which is most of the time more efficient) when you can take a swing at the neck?
Disgusting.
Rugby is about power, fairness and self-control.
No matter if there is an obstructive running. Why push in the back or even avoid contact (which is most of the time more efficient) when you can take a swing at the neck?
Disgusting.
Holmzec November 27, 2012 2:44 pm
Clearly out of order.......suspension will be due I'm sure and rightly so.........deal with it and move on...........as far the obstruction is concerned.......pretty clear he was blatantly impeding Hore's kick chase..........and if you nay sayers out there don't agree.......remind yourself of Luke McAlister's yellow card in World Cup vs French.......don't like to see a guy get injured....but he might well rethink his obstruction technique in future.
brawnybalboa November 27, 2012 3:18 pm
On scrum v they showed a replay of the previous phase, and it is clear that Bradley Davies runs a line to obstruct Andrew Hore. But as Lyn Jones says "He was doing his job". Which is correct under Law 10.1 Obstruction: "When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either player must not charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder." Bradley Davies, like most other international players will simply run a line so that they are infront of the opponent player, hence requiring that other player to run around them, or to push them out of the day (in theory a penalty offense).
Andrew Hore intentionally brought a swinging arm to Bradley Davies's neck from a blind side position. Regardless of any other infringements this is a Red Card offense. I got a red card and 6 week suspension for something similar I did as a Youth player.
(Link to Scrum V talk of the event: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/20490450)
Andrew Hore intentionally brought a swinging arm to Bradley Davies's neck from a blind side position. Regardless of any other infringements this is a Red Card offense. I got a red card and 6 week suspension for something similar I did as a Youth player.
(Link to Scrum V talk of the event: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/20490450)
Rugbydump November 27, 2012 10:46 pm
That replay is actually included in the above video
Deeps November 27, 2012 3:53 pm
Bradley was responding to Donncha's clearing out of Adam Jones from a ruck a few seconds earlier. The clear out was borderline penalty. It doesn't excuse BR's tip tackle though, but it is q different to what happened on sat to BR. Also he was yellow-carded during the game. Hore was not.
ROW November 27, 2012 7:28 pm
This is the first time I commented on Rugby Dump so let me know what you think
Reflecting on the incident, who knows what the score might have been?? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. What if Prystland had actually found touch with his kicks and the 13 man lineout was in the first few minutes, how would NZ have responded?? You just don't know. There are a lot of what ifs.
The difference today to say 30 years ago is that if this incident would have happened in the 70’s Hore would have been dealt with on the field (Lions v South Africa 99-call) but you can’t do that anymore. In this instance because the officials didn’t see anything the likelihood is that it would be a Welsh guy in the bin or worse because of his reaction
Was DB running an obstructive line? Possibly? Probably!! but are these not the 'dark arts' or 'gamesmanship' that we love about the game. Indeed are these (among many) the true skills of a great rugby player, this floating on the border of the rules, running a fine line is what has made Richie Mccaw possible one of the best rugby players in a generation.
What was clear that BD was taken clean out, not accidental, but cynical hit from behind. Some people have commented that it was not that bad, not malice involved. Please bear in mind that BD is nearly 19 Stone and just under 2m tall, he's not a small man!!! So Hore should get a lengthy ban and he probably will
The question that NZ are a bit dirty arises?? I don’t think you can be as successful as NZ without having an nasty side, but you have to be able to take it as well, but the minute somebody puts their hand on Carter or McCaw NZ are up in arms, 'you can't touch our Richie' hands off.
There is a mean streak for sure, even Nonu on the weekend was going into rucks with flying shoulders, stamps on Scott Williams, winding people up on the floor, but that is rugby is it not?? What teams need to do is giving it back rather then complain because the AB will react and give away penalties
They play
Reflecting on the incident, who knows what the score might have been?? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. What if Prystland had actually found touch with his kicks and the 13 man lineout was in the first few minutes, how would NZ have responded?? You just don't know. There are a lot of what ifs.
The difference today to say 30 years ago is that if this incident would have happened in the 70’s Hore would have been dealt with on the field (Lions v South Africa 99-call) but you can’t do that anymore. In this instance because the officials didn’t see anything the likelihood is that it would be a Welsh guy in the bin or worse because of his reaction
Was DB running an obstructive line? Possibly? Probably!! but are these not the 'dark arts' or 'gamesmanship' that we love about the game. Indeed are these (among many) the true skills of a great rugby player, this floating on the border of the rules, running a fine line is what has made Richie Mccaw possible one of the best rugby players in a generation.
What was clear that BD was taken clean out, not accidental, but cynical hit from behind. Some people have commented that it was not that bad, not malice involved. Please bear in mind that BD is nearly 19 Stone and just under 2m tall, he's not a small man!!! So Hore should get a lengthy ban and he probably will
The question that NZ are a bit dirty arises?? I don’t think you can be as successful as NZ without having an nasty side, but you have to be able to take it as well, but the minute somebody puts their hand on Carter or McCaw NZ are up in arms, 'you can't touch our Richie' hands off.
There is a mean streak for sure, even Nonu on the weekend was going into rucks with flying shoulders, stamps on Scott Williams, winding people up on the floor, but that is rugby is it not?? What teams need to do is giving it back rather then complain because the AB will react and give away penalties
They play
ROW November 27, 2012 7:31 pm
Here is the rest of it. Like I said I'm new to all this!!!
-They play the mind game so well, they force teams to put their body’s on the line at every breakdown due to their physicality and if you don’t you lose, simple as that
I think teams are scared to get into their face. Show the AB respect because they are a class team but it does not mean that you can’t smash them about as well!!
At the end of the day Wales lost the game I the first half, they were out played by a very good AB team, possible one of the best AB teams. The Welsh made too many mistakes e.g. 2x missed kicks to touch and got punished for them. The AB play smarter than any other team, but if you get in their faces and apply pressure they will fold, not easily but eventually.
It was a really good game of rugby to watch
-They play the mind game so well, they force teams to put their body’s on the line at every breakdown due to their physicality and if you don’t you lose, simple as that
I think teams are scared to get into their face. Show the AB respect because they are a class team but it does not mean that you can’t smash them about as well!!
At the end of the day Wales lost the game I the first half, they were out played by a very good AB team, possible one of the best AB teams. The Welsh made too many mistakes e.g. 2x missed kicks to touch and got punished for them. The AB play smarter than any other team, but if you get in their faces and apply pressure they will fold, not easily but eventually.
It was a really good game of rugby to watch
Gonzoman November 27, 2012 8:18 pm
I dunno lads, put yourself in BD's shoes...no one likes a Hore that punches!
(intended for comic relief)
(intended for comic relief)
smashhulk November 27, 2012 8:37 pm
Clearly the All Blacks aren't thugs - just one of them.
Steve Hansen wasn't universally popular when in charge of Wales, but I liked him - thought he was the kind of straight talking guy Wales needed. His straight talking seems to have deserted him , and he's dancing around the issue.
It is disappointing that he can't just say that Hore's behaviour was unacceptable and apologise on behalf of the All Blacks.
When Bradley Davies did a stupid tip tackle against Ireland, Gatland immediately acknowledged the stupidity and seriousness of it.
Steve Hansen wasn't universally popular when in charge of Wales, but I liked him - thought he was the kind of straight talking guy Wales needed. His straight talking seems to have deserted him , and he's dancing around the issue.
It is disappointing that he can't just say that Hore's behaviour was unacceptable and apologise on behalf of the All Blacks.
When Bradley Davies did a stupid tip tackle against Ireland, Gatland immediately acknowledged the stupidity and seriousness of it.
AndreJ November 27, 2012 9:32 pm
They where an all black jersey for a reason. I know that the All Blacks have a legendary status, but I have never seen them as a team that played fairly. Any team that is willing to do these kind of tricks to win a game. (world cup, knee to the head of the French kicker) says all about them. They may be one of the best teams in history but they will be remembered as All Blacks in more ways then one.
Guest November 28, 2012 1:44 am
Stop bringing up the world cup final knee. It doesnt even compare to Rougerie blatantly gouging Mccaw which everyone in the world saw, but many seem to conveniently forget..
Oliver November 28, 2012 10:42 am
You're absolutely right, it doesnt compare.
The punch/knee combo was way worse. Parra had to leave the game, McCaw didn't.
And I believe targetting the kicker was planned.
Just like the O'Driscoll 'incident' maybe ?
The punch/knee combo was way worse. Parra had to leave the game, McCaw didn't.
And I believe targetting the kicker was planned.
Just like the O'Driscoll 'incident' maybe ?
Oliver November 29, 2012 10:04 am
so "rough up the kicker" is a conspiracy now?
PS :
it's "bien sûr" mate.
PS :
it's "bien sûr" mate.
Harry November 28, 2012 3:51 am
Hore should be dumped from the All Blacks for good, you have to be a complete moron to do that in the 1st minute in front of everybody, but i think the english women's team would've beaten wales. They should've taken their kicks at goal instead of trying to be heroes.
FelipeG November 28, 2012 9:20 am
Haha, sure wales isn't in good shape. As for the incident, the amount of comments here speaks for itself.
Rossco November 28, 2012 11:43 am
Hore was out of line - but it's a bit rich for anyone to say this was a "cheap shot from behind". Davis looks over his shoulder several times to make sure he obstructs Hore - if he looked once more he would have been able to get his fend up in time. What really gets up my nose is that he still gets a test cap even though he only played 1 minute of footy.
And I agree that Hansen should be more straight up about it: "Keep up with the cute stuff and pay the consequences".
And I agree that Hansen should be more straight up about it: "Keep up with the cute stuff and pay the consequences".
Yorffeo November 28, 2012 12:28 pm
Anyway - I lost my admiration for the AB team. I used to admire them I am not anymore (I don't pretend that they care)
Ok they are good - so good sometimes the referee (and citing comission?) is getting blind.
Ok they are good - so good sometimes the referee (and citing comission?) is getting blind.
GraceOfBod November 28, 2012 1:52 pm
Im not saying that what Hore did was ok, but we have seen in recent yeas the reactions of players whose jerseys are being held at the side of rucks. Inevitably there are punches thrown and a fight starts. This is a similar issue which needs to be dealt with by the IRB, by Bradley Davies running that illegal disruptive line in front of Hore, it causes a similar reaction to being held at the side of the ruck. Therefore Hore lashes out.(again not justifying it), a reation born out of frustation. The IRB needs to tell referees to clamp down on this sort of play and we will have fewer incidences like this.
Matt November 28, 2012 2:52 pm
Repeating what brawnybalboa said.... "Law 10.1 Obstruction: "When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either player must not charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder."
In my opinion BD wasn't breaking any laws of the game, he was just running in a line that would most disrupt Hore. He didn't stop or change direction in front of him, push him or charge, he ran a straight line. He doesn't have to give way?
In my opinion BD wasn't breaking any laws of the game, he was just running in a line that would most disrupt Hore. He didn't stop or change direction in front of him, push him or charge, he ran a straight line. He doesn't have to give way?
veji1 November 28, 2012 3:15 pm
I am sorry that Guy but every year in many cities of the worlds dudes die from a single blow to the head that caught them of guard... saying that eye gouging can cause permanent loss of sight (true), that spear tackle can break a neck (true), but that a stiff arm/punch taking a player by surprise and hitting from behind/sideways doesn't do much baring freak accident is ridiculous...
in all those instances the risk is there of major health damage. The reason I put what Hore did on par with eye gouging, as opposed to a spear tackle, is because there is clear malicious intent.
At least on quite a few spear tackles, although a severe sanction is still warranted, one can argue that the tackler failed to keep control of his tackling motion and misused his and the tacklee's motion speed to make a speartackle. Malicious intent, although there sometimes, is not automatic. I don't believe Warburton wanted to speartackle Clerc. He wanted to tackle him hard, but lost control of his move (his fault), and ended up doing a very dangerous tackle warranting a red.
But here Hore, just like an eye gouger, just went for murder, knowing very well what he was doing, even if in the heat of the moment. And this malicious intent, coupled with the high dangerosity of the gesture, despite what you claim, warrants a long long ban.
in all those instances the risk is there of major health damage. The reason I put what Hore did on par with eye gouging, as opposed to a spear tackle, is because there is clear malicious intent.
At least on quite a few spear tackles, although a severe sanction is still warranted, one can argue that the tackler failed to keep control of his tackling motion and misused his and the tacklee's motion speed to make a speartackle. Malicious intent, although there sometimes, is not automatic. I don't believe Warburton wanted to speartackle Clerc. He wanted to tackle him hard, but lost control of his move (his fault), and ended up doing a very dangerous tackle warranting a red.
But here Hore, just like an eye gouger, just went for murder, knowing very well what he was doing, even if in the heat of the moment. And this malicious intent, coupled with the high dangerosity of the gesture, despite what you claim, warrants a long long ban.
kirky November 28, 2012 6:46 pm
He was going for murder. Ok now that is clear.
katman November 28, 2012 4:02 pm
So he got 5 weeks (which means 5 games). And this is another cop-out, in my opinion. The Highlanders will argue that he would have played in all three of the warm-up games (which is rubbish) and these will be included in the ban. So he'll effectively miss one test match and the first Super 15 game.
The Kiwi fanclub is alive and kicking in the disciplinary panel.
The Kiwi fanclub is alive and kicking in the disciplinary panel.
paino14 November 28, 2012 4:16 pm
I'm not entirely sure that's what it means i.e he got 5 games (although the BBC is agreeing with you). Look at Rob Simmons from Aus, he got 8 weeks but this meant he would only miss one test match and available for the super 15. Sky does not imply that he will miss the first week of the super 15. Can we get a clarification?
Either way, this is a joke. They ruled that he didn't intentionally make contact. Got to be kidding me...
Either way, this is a joke. They ruled that he didn't intentionally make contact. Got to be kidding me...
DanKnapp December 04, 2012 7:07 pm
I think...
When they give bans they either give bans which last for a number of weeks, or which last for a number of 'effective weeks'. Effective weeks = games.
So if a player is banned for two weeks, and there is only one game in that time, they only miss one game.
If they are banned for two effective weeks it means they miss two games.
I believe that is the case, but not an expert.
When they give bans they either give bans which last for a number of weeks, or which last for a number of 'effective weeks'. Effective weeks = games.
So if a player is banned for two weeks, and there is only one game in that time, they only miss one game.
If they are banned for two effective weeks it means they miss two games.
I believe that is the case, but not an expert.
stroudos November 28, 2012 4:32 pm
That decision is almost as cowardly as the blindside cheapshot itself.
Absolutely disgraceful.
Absolutely disgraceful.
paul65 November 28, 2012 4:48 pm
In instances where concussion or injury causing foul play citings lead to a ban why can't the ban duration be added to using the following logic:
The severe concussion that Bradley Davies suffered as a result of Hore's foul play means that Davies is sidelined for a number of weeks while he follows a Graduated Return to Play (GRTP). If you add the number of weeks that Davies is out of professional rugby to Hore's 5 week ban that might prove more of a foul play deterrent. If Davies takes more than 5 weeks to recover and get back to playing then surely this makes a mockery of the 5 week ban imposed on Hore as he'll be back to playing professional rugby before Davies?
Thoughts?
The severe concussion that Bradley Davies suffered as a result of Hore's foul play means that Davies is sidelined for a number of weeks while he follows a Graduated Return to Play (GRTP). If you add the number of weeks that Davies is out of professional rugby to Hore's 5 week ban that might prove more of a foul play deterrent. If Davies takes more than 5 weeks to recover and get back to playing then surely this makes a mockery of the 5 week ban imposed on Hore as he'll be back to playing professional rugby before Davies?
Thoughts?
Keenan7 November 28, 2012 5:42 pm
5 weeks.....5 weeks?! that is all?! this decision is just making a downright mockery of the disciplinary panel. what does this extremely mild ban for an extremely severe offense spell out for others?! for Hore? absolutely nothing.
5 games, 3 of which are pre-season....so he will only really miss 2 games, while his "unintentional" punch to the back of a head from behind, and kneedrop, may potentially remove a player from the game forever. This is a joke. and absolute stinking joke
5 games, 3 of which are pre-season....so he will only really miss 2 games, while his "unintentional" punch to the back of a head from behind, and kneedrop, may potentially remove a player from the game forever. This is a joke. and absolute stinking joke
kirky November 28, 2012 6:24 pm
Really - the jugular vein was opened? I agree it was stupid from a player with a previously good history. But it is trying to sensationalise code approved sprigs on a well protected scrum cap - and then the guy is going to bleed to death?
Mark Reason from Australia compares the Hore incident to Charles Manson. The mass murderer. Really people? I am a kiwi - and very disappointed. I believe for Hore it was a clumsy and reckless clean out. Did he try to knock the guy out? I can't see that after seeing him play many matches. Did a red mist descend after being blocked - yes. Was it appropriate to clean him out high - no. Is he Charles Manson? Seriously?
Mark Reason from Australia compares the Hore incident to Charles Manson. The mass murderer. Really people? I am a kiwi - and very disappointed. I believe for Hore it was a clumsy and reckless clean out. Did he try to knock the guy out? I can't see that after seeing him play many matches. Did a red mist descend after being blocked - yes. Was it appropriate to clean him out high - no. Is he Charles Manson? Seriously?
kirky November 28, 2012 7:01 pm
Yes - that is what they call it in rugby they try to get someone out of the way. I appreciate you think it was premeditated, and if he had a history I would be the first to agree. I don't think it was, the disciplinary committee don't think it was. Only one person actually does know if it was, as I say - after watching him many many times - I just do subscribe to the obvious "he knocked him out so he wanted to remove him from the game". I agree with the 8 weeks, I agree it was reckless, I don't agree it was malicious.
Jimothy November 29, 2012 10:40 pm
I don't know which is stupider Horse's attack on BD or you claiming he was clearing out! You can only clear out a ruck and as far as I can see BD wasn't even involved in the ruck. What you're essentially saying is that I can run round the field smashing anyone I like in the name of 'clearing out'!
FreeB November 28, 2012 6:24 pm
Even a psycopath will show empathy if they know it improves their position. Hore would have walked off that pitch and straight into the AB lawyers office to be told how to play the game and reduce the sentance. It is sad that the one individual who counts seems so blind to the general concensus about the severity of the act.
joeythelemur November 29, 2012 12:48 am
So in your eyes, Hore is a psychopath and can't truly have any remorse, even though he clearly stated so, and having talked and apologized to Davies? You think he really doesn't feel bad about what he did? Rubbish.
And Hore doesn't run the judiciary, so the blame for the piss poor ruling (and it was piss poor, should have left it at least at 8 weeks) should stay with the judicial system for rugby.
And Hore doesn't run the judiciary, so the blame for the piss poor ruling (and it was piss poor, should have left it at least at 8 weeks) should stay with the judicial system for rugby.
Pretzel November 29, 2012 8:23 am
No, Hore is no psychopath, nor is he (I assume) anything to do with my analogy:
"Even wife beaters get upset and are sorry for what they do"
...I understand feeling remorseful, but he still did it... Remorse should act as some sort of "smiley face sticker" on his disciplinary record, but it shouldn't act as a reduction factor. Let's say this was simply Hore having the red mist descend and feels terrible that he lost control, perhaps players of his calibre who succumb to a red mist need to take a little more time out and not be rewarded for their sorrow and put back in a position where red mist can once again descend...
"Even wife beaters get upset and are sorry for what they do"
...I understand feeling remorseful, but he still did it... Remorse should act as some sort of "smiley face sticker" on his disciplinary record, but it shouldn't act as a reduction factor. Let's say this was simply Hore having the red mist descend and feels terrible that he lost control, perhaps players of his calibre who succumb to a red mist need to take a little more time out and not be rewarded for their sorrow and put back in a position where red mist can once again descend...
Gee Dubya November 28, 2012 6:34 pm
As has been mentioned, 5 weeks is a joke compared ot the time that Davies is going to theoretically take to get back up to int'l standard. Hore for his part was entirely malicious and cynical, although from the behind camera view it appears that he could have made the play, from the side on view his intent is obvious in realtion to the position of the ruck and Davies. If you have ever boxed a little you might have noticed that where Hore decided to 'swing' at Davies is pretty much the sweet spot to KO someone, it was a cynical, malicious professional foul with full intent.
I am slightly on the fence about the use of video judges for foul play during a match if the other officials haev missed it, but at the same time the disciplinary panel definitely needs to find its teeth
I am slightly on the fence about the use of video judges for foul play during a match if the other officials haev missed it, but at the same time the disciplinary panel definitely needs to find its teeth
Jack 2 November 28, 2012 7:21 pm
Is this yet ANOTHER example of New Zealand players being given special treatment?
Pretzel November 28, 2012 8:06 pm
LMAO, Honestly 5 weeks is hilarious, what has made it more hilarious is some of the reasons/statements:
-"The Judicial Officer found that the player had not intended to make contact with the victim player's head."
HAHAHA
-He was actually given 8 weeks but had it reduced by 3 because: "acceptance of guilt, genuine remorse, exemplary disciplinary record and his conduct during the hearing".
Wait? Conduct during the hearing?!? HAHA, what so the guy wore a suit and said "yes sir, sorry sir" and that helps reduce his sentence? Acceptance of guilt? REALLY? How many camera's and sets of eyes saw what he did, not much denying it there... perhaps you could argue that it was actually the inside centre that did it, and the camera angles made the 1 invisible...
-He is going to miss 3 warm up matches for the Highlanders? HAHA, ok, warm up matches are important no doubt, but why them? Why not count the little inter-team matches that they might have on a training day...
Laughable I say!!! *Climbs off soapbox*
-"The Judicial Officer found that the player had not intended to make contact with the victim player's head."
HAHAHA
-He was actually given 8 weeks but had it reduced by 3 because: "acceptance of guilt, genuine remorse, exemplary disciplinary record and his conduct during the hearing".
Wait? Conduct during the hearing?!? HAHA, what so the guy wore a suit and said "yes sir, sorry sir" and that helps reduce his sentence? Acceptance of guilt? REALLY? How many camera's and sets of eyes saw what he did, not much denying it there... perhaps you could argue that it was actually the inside centre that did it, and the camera angles made the 1 invisible...
-He is going to miss 3 warm up matches for the Highlanders? HAHA, ok, warm up matches are important no doubt, but why them? Why not count the little inter-team matches that they might have on a training day...
Laughable I say!!! *Climbs off soapbox*
Pretzel November 28, 2012 8:23 pm
I think the banning bunch make rods for their own backs... either they keep these bans consistent or they don't bother at all...
A year or two back Andy Powell caught McCaw in the chops with a swinging arm, he escaped on field punishment, escaped a citing, and escaped a ban. Has that got anything to do with this? I doubt it, but now this is (what I consider) a lenient ban.
So how can they justify banning Thomson for 2 weeks? He was banned for 2, it was reduced to 1 for past good behaviour? Well.. why is his past good behaviour not worth as much as Hore's? Thomson had Strokosch on his side, it was not as dangerous, it did not result in a bad an injury, yet he gets 1 week reduction (which is then put back on again...)
There is ZERO consistency and frankly that lot make themselves look like a bunch of clowns, how can anyone take anything they say seriously...
To sum up:
AH damages BD and gets 8 weeks, but because he was good and showed remorse and has a good record it's reduced by 3 weeks.
AT nudges Strokosch and gets 2 weeks, Strokosch said there was nothing in it (which should in theory be worth a similar amount to a players remorse) because he has a good past record it gets reduced by 1 week... then it gets added back on again..
Laughable!
A year or two back Andy Powell caught McCaw in the chops with a swinging arm, he escaped on field punishment, escaped a citing, and escaped a ban. Has that got anything to do with this? I doubt it, but now this is (what I consider) a lenient ban.
So how can they justify banning Thomson for 2 weeks? He was banned for 2, it was reduced to 1 for past good behaviour? Well.. why is his past good behaviour not worth as much as Hore's? Thomson had Strokosch on his side, it was not as dangerous, it did not result in a bad an injury, yet he gets 1 week reduction (which is then put back on again...)
There is ZERO consistency and frankly that lot make themselves look like a bunch of clowns, how can anyone take anything they say seriously...
To sum up:
AH damages BD and gets 8 weeks, but because he was good and showed remorse and has a good record it's reduced by 3 weeks.
AT nudges Strokosch and gets 2 weeks, Strokosch said there was nothing in it (which should in theory be worth a similar amount to a players remorse) because he has a good past record it gets reduced by 1 week... then it gets added back on again..
Laughable!
Gonzoman November 28, 2012 8:24 pm
This is ridiculous! 5 weeks! You have to wonder if the citing commission has a large dartboard with ban durations on it...they have a few pints and take a shot!
There is no real consistency in the judgements from the CC...do they even look at past bans, etc?
I also think there is far too much weight given to "mitigating factors" that help reduce bans. Does anyone else feel like they are written in as a cop out? "Look, we're so tough on foul play that we're going to ban this guy for two months...but because of blah blah blah he's only gotta serve 5 weeks".
I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I wonder how much pressure is applied by "unseen forces", like corporate sponsors, national unions, etc.? It might be interesting to see what goes on behind the scenes...
There is no real consistency in the judgements from the CC...do they even look at past bans, etc?
I also think there is far too much weight given to "mitigating factors" that help reduce bans. Does anyone else feel like they are written in as a cop out? "Look, we're so tough on foul play that we're going to ban this guy for two months...but because of blah blah blah he's only gotta serve 5 weeks".
I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I wonder how much pressure is applied by "unseen forces", like corporate sponsors, national unions, etc.? It might be interesting to see what goes on behind the scenes...
Ted the slacker November 28, 2012 8:54 pm
I see all these comments saying "5 weeks? Complete joke, where's the consistency", and I have to ask myself, have you been living under a rock the last half dozen years?
There has never, ever been anything that could remotely be considered a consistent process in this area. For what happened here, you could find precedent for everything from no ban to about 12 weeks. There is as much validity to saying Hore copped a harsh penalty as saying he got off lightly.
A lot of people furiously tucked in their shirts and looked down their noses at the Bok protest when Bakkies Botha copped his absurd ban during the Lions series, but where are these people now? The whole purpose of the protest, whatever you thought of it, was to highlight the utterly arbitrary nature of the citing process. The Bokke were right, and there was pretty much no-one in the media with the balls to say so.
The only way the system will change is when one day, someone cops a long ban and they sue the suits. It's a professional game, a player getting a long ban has a lot to lose, so if this process doesn't become professional too, the suits will get it from a proper court. I don't care if it's some pantomime villain like Dylan Hartley who ends up taking it to them, I will cheer him to the hilt against the suits who will have to defend their shameful record.
#thingsthathavelongpissedmeoff
There has never, ever been anything that could remotely be considered a consistent process in this area. For what happened here, you could find precedent for everything from no ban to about 12 weeks. There is as much validity to saying Hore copped a harsh penalty as saying he got off lightly.
A lot of people furiously tucked in their shirts and looked down their noses at the Bok protest when Bakkies Botha copped his absurd ban during the Lions series, but where are these people now? The whole purpose of the protest, whatever you thought of it, was to highlight the utterly arbitrary nature of the citing process. The Bokke were right, and there was pretty much no-one in the media with the balls to say so.
The only way the system will change is when one day, someone cops a long ban and they sue the suits. It's a professional game, a player getting a long ban has a lot to lose, so if this process doesn't become professional too, the suits will get it from a proper court. I don't care if it's some pantomime villain like Dylan Hartley who ends up taking it to them, I will cheer him to the hilt against the suits who will have to defend their shameful record.
#thingsthathavelongpissedmeoff
katman November 28, 2012 9:24 pm
Has either Hore or Hansen made a public apology yet? All I heard from Hansen was rubbish about how it always goes like this when they travel north along with some smug, dismissive comments about not having seen it.
At the very least, tell the world it was wrong and you're sorry. That's what should count as repentance and good conduct. Not how you behave at the hearing.
At the very least, tell the world it was wrong and you're sorry. That's what should count as repentance and good conduct. Not how you behave at the hearing.
ChillDoubt November 28, 2012 10:17 pm
5 weeks for a full blooded swinging arm cowardly assault from behind, that would see you arrested in any town on a Saturday night.
Richie Rees got 12 for accidentally making contact with Hartley's face when he grabbed him, but it seems 'it don't mean jack if you wear the Black'.
Shocking decision from the IRB, compounded all the more with the "However, the Judicial Officer found that the player had not intended to make contact with the victim player's head" decision.
So exactly where WAS Hore aiming for on the body? Playful rib dig? Ankle tap?
Hang your head IRB for giving the AB's carte blanche to decide how THEY will police the game and not the ref's. Shameful.
Richie Rees got 12 for accidentally making contact with Hartley's face when he grabbed him, but it seems 'it don't mean jack if you wear the Black'.
Shocking decision from the IRB, compounded all the more with the "However, the Judicial Officer found that the player had not intended to make contact with the victim player's head" decision.
So exactly where WAS Hore aiming for on the body? Playful rib dig? Ankle tap?
Hang your head IRB for giving the AB's carte blanche to decide how THEY will police the game and not the ref's. Shameful.
Calon Lan November 28, 2012 10:30 pm
I'd love to know how the Judicial Officer came to this conclusion...
"However, the Judicial Officer found that the player had not intended to make contact with the victim player’s head."
Looking at the replays surely the only way he could come to that opinion is because Hore told him so?
On that reasoning I personally think that Davies should have been banned for 8 weeks for accidentally putting his face under the falling knee of the innocent Hore. Maybe they could add a couple of week on to it for the possible speeding offence that he accidentally committed while being driven to the hospital in an ambulance.
It's a real shame that the NZRU didn't have the balls to stand up and take action against Hore rather than just supporting him.
"However, the Judicial Officer found that the player had not intended to make contact with the victim player’s head."
Looking at the replays surely the only way he could come to that opinion is because Hore told him so?
On that reasoning I personally think that Davies should have been banned for 8 weeks for accidentally putting his face under the falling knee of the innocent Hore. Maybe they could add a couple of week on to it for the possible speeding offence that he accidentally committed while being driven to the hospital in an ambulance.
It's a real shame that the NZRU didn't have the balls to stand up and take action against Hore rather than just supporting him.
Izzy November 29, 2012 2:28 am
If their was some huge 'All Black special treatment' conspiracy, why was Andy Powell not banned for his deliberate swinging arm to McCaw's jaw? Why was Quade Cooper not banned for a deliberate knee? Why was Rougerie not banned for eye gouging? Why was Hartley not banned for his elbow drop? Dean Greyling's flying wwe elbow was worse than this and he only got 2 weeks.
It's just another case of the british media and supporters making up stories just like the 'All Blacks stealing pacific island players' myth.
The last time a team from the UK beat them was almost 10 years ago, so i understand the frustration from the media and supporters. Cant beat them on the field so why not bash them off the field right?
We all know Hore was 100% wrong for what he did, he's remorseful, he apologized, he copped his punishment, he admits he let himself, his team mates and his country down and has been keeping in touch with Davies everyday since. Two major incidents in 7 years and all of a sudden the AB's have this 'terrible darkside and only win because of foul play'. What a joke!
It's just another case of the british media and supporters making up stories just like the 'All Blacks stealing pacific island players' myth.
The last time a team from the UK beat them was almost 10 years ago, so i understand the frustration from the media and supporters. Cant beat them on the field so why not bash them off the field right?
We all know Hore was 100% wrong for what he did, he's remorseful, he apologized, he copped his punishment, he admits he let himself, his team mates and his country down and has been keeping in touch with Davies everyday since. Two major incidents in 7 years and all of a sudden the AB's have this 'terrible darkside and only win because of foul play'. What a joke!
WAIKATO886 November 29, 2012 4:36 am
Too many people on here complain too much. All Blacks dont get special treatment.. NH teams just need to up their game.
katman November 29, 2012 9:07 am
All we want is the same inconsistency for everyone.
Karl November 29, 2012 11:35 am
With all the vitriol flowing around this issue, it is probably important to look where it is appropriate to lay blame.
Hore was rightly cited and banned, and lucky the incident wasn't seen by the referee or touch judges as he would have probably been red-cared if it was.
There has been talk about the lack of response from Hore and Hansen publicly, which in my opinion is a load of hot air. There was no way they were going to say anything publicly before the hearing, but as it turns out Hore has been in daily contact with Davies. To be honest, if any apologies are due, they should be to Davies and not to the public.
Are the All Blacks thugs? Well, no more than any other international team, who will also have on average two or three players before the judiciary in any international season. Australia have had Higginbotham, Sitalaki, and Simmons, South Africa Greyling, and Etzebeth (twice, but once not punished). It is going to be a fact of the game that in a physical game with so much riding on it that from time to time someone is going to lose their cool and do something stupid. I don't have all the stats but it seems as though the perpetrators are spread around all teams reasonably evenly. Of course, some individual players may find themselves repeat offenders, but in actual fact those players often don't rise to the very top because they also tend to get carded more often which hurts their team.
In my opinion, given the other bans given recently, Hore's is in line with other punishments. It is the longest with Simmons (8 weeks reduced to 5), and out of any, Greyling's 2 weeks looks to be the softest.
The fact that most of the time will be served during warm-up games for Super Rugby is a fault of the rules of the system, and not of the players or the judiciary. And I agree that it does rankle. However, the alternative could mean that a player could be banned in Super Rugby or Heineken Cup and still represent their country. Is this acceptable?
Hore was rightly cited and banned, and lucky the incident wasn't seen by the referee or touch judges as he would have probably been red-cared if it was.
There has been talk about the lack of response from Hore and Hansen publicly, which in my opinion is a load of hot air. There was no way they were going to say anything publicly before the hearing, but as it turns out Hore has been in daily contact with Davies. To be honest, if any apologies are due, they should be to Davies and not to the public.
Are the All Blacks thugs? Well, no more than any other international team, who will also have on average two or three players before the judiciary in any international season. Australia have had Higginbotham, Sitalaki, and Simmons, South Africa Greyling, and Etzebeth (twice, but once not punished). It is going to be a fact of the game that in a physical game with so much riding on it that from time to time someone is going to lose their cool and do something stupid. I don't have all the stats but it seems as though the perpetrators are spread around all teams reasonably evenly. Of course, some individual players may find themselves repeat offenders, but in actual fact those players often don't rise to the very top because they also tend to get carded more often which hurts their team.
In my opinion, given the other bans given recently, Hore's is in line with other punishments. It is the longest with Simmons (8 weeks reduced to 5), and out of any, Greyling's 2 weeks looks to be the softest.
The fact that most of the time will be served during warm-up games for Super Rugby is a fault of the rules of the system, and not of the players or the judiciary. And I agree that it does rankle. However, the alternative could mean that a player could be banned in Super Rugby or Heineken Cup and still represent their country. Is this acceptable?
Pretzel November 29, 2012 1:46 pm
I have a question for yourself and for everyone else on here. Would you actually all pay much attention to the punishment that Hore has received IF he had been dealt a red card on the pitch?
I personally feel an 8 week ban (reduced to 5, which was Hore's punishment) is "soft" compared to the "crime"... I have no allegiances to Wales, nor did I see the game, I can hand on heart say that I was completely neutral, I knew the AB's would win, I wasn't expecting them to face any great trouble with the Welsh, it was all very predictable to me. However the thing that has really left a bitter taste is the way it was not dealt with on the pitch, fine the referee and the touchies didn't see it, I can accept that, and I can accept that under the current laws the TMO cannot step in, but IF the TMO was allowed to step in, AND if someone had the balls to give a red card in the opening minute of the match, then I don't think 5 weeks would actually bother me THAT much...
That being said, the reasons for his reductions certainly did piss me off... "conduct during the hearing, admitting his guilt" etc...
I personally feel an 8 week ban (reduced to 5, which was Hore's punishment) is "soft" compared to the "crime"... I have no allegiances to Wales, nor did I see the game, I can hand on heart say that I was completely neutral, I knew the AB's would win, I wasn't expecting them to face any great trouble with the Welsh, it was all very predictable to me. However the thing that has really left a bitter taste is the way it was not dealt with on the pitch, fine the referee and the touchies didn't see it, I can accept that, and I can accept that under the current laws the TMO cannot step in, but IF the TMO was allowed to step in, AND if someone had the balls to give a red card in the opening minute of the match, then I don't think 5 weeks would actually bother me THAT much...
That being said, the reasons for his reductions certainly did piss me off... "conduct during the hearing, admitting his guilt" etc...
Reality November 29, 2012 3:23 pm
Yeah, the admission of guilt thing is pretty intelligent isn't it? They show him a video of him smacking the guy; what's he going to say, "No, that wasn't me" or, "That video has obviously been doctured"? If he didn't admit his guilt he'd obviously have some sort of mental problem, so I don't see why it should count towards a reduction.
And the remorse thing; "Yeah, I beat my wife your honour, but I feel terrible about it, so give me a break, will you?" It doesn't work like that elsewhere, so I don't know why it does in rugby.
Even the conduct during the hearing. He doesn't turn up in a tracksuit and he doesn't throw any paper airplanes during the hearing, so they give him a more lenient sentence?
And the remorse thing; "Yeah, I beat my wife your honour, but I feel terrible about it, so give me a break, will you?" It doesn't work like that elsewhere, so I don't know why it does in rugby.
Even the conduct during the hearing. He doesn't turn up in a tracksuit and he doesn't throw any paper airplanes during the hearing, so they give him a more lenient sentence?
That Guy November 30, 2012 5:47 am
Actually judges in a court of law quite often take remorse into account so not sure about that point. Its hard to say otherwise but accidents do happen and there is always the chance that he wasnt wanting to punch him in the head.
Pretzel November 30, 2012 10:43 am
But he DID punch/stiff arm, him in the head. So shouldn't he be punished on the action, which imo enter in at a severe level, therefore 8 weeks. He showed remorse, wore a suit and didn't throw paper airplanes (I liked that one reality) in the hearing so don't add any further weeks. Had he said "well whatever, he deserved it, I don't care, it wasn't me" etc, then slap another week on top of that. Same as if he had a long string of offences..
Karl November 29, 2012 4:48 pm
Pretzel,
As far as I can tell, the punishment would have been similar if he was given a red card, perhaps a week or two less. Maybe minus the uproar, but I'm not even sure about that.
You may regard the punishment as soft, but who has got heavier punishments in in the past year or so? The only ones I know of are for eye-gouging, biting and spear tackles.
SANZAR publishes Judiciary wraps for each week of super rugby. Check out the citings and suspensions there, and you might come to the conclusion that they were all soft. Certainly, the suspensions are nothing like what Richard Loe or Johan Le Roux got for their offences.
I do agree though that the failure of the officials to take action is something that can be rectified. I don't think it is fair that a team that suffers foul play doesn't get the benefit of any punishment to the offender.
I also think that the suspension system is flawed. If Hore had been suspended for five tests (effectively through to September next year) then that would have probably satisfied most observers too, I think.
As far as I can tell, the punishment would have been similar if he was given a red card, perhaps a week or two less. Maybe minus the uproar, but I'm not even sure about that.
You may regard the punishment as soft, but who has got heavier punishments in in the past year or so? The only ones I know of are for eye-gouging, biting and spear tackles.
SANZAR publishes Judiciary wraps for each week of super rugby. Check out the citings and suspensions there, and you might come to the conclusion that they were all soft. Certainly, the suspensions are nothing like what Richard Loe or Johan Le Roux got for their offences.
I do agree though that the failure of the officials to take action is something that can be rectified. I don't think it is fair that a team that suffers foul play doesn't get the benefit of any punishment to the offender.
I also think that the suspension system is flawed. If Hore had been suspended for five tests (effectively through to September next year) then that would have probably satisfied most observers too, I think.
Pretzel November 29, 2012 8:18 pm
Karl,
I agree, I have been one to say "where is the consistency", which I will admit is obvious... it's consistently weak. I suppose what I mean is, "can we have some harsh punishments for bad acts, and leave the small 2-3 week bans for the not too bad acts"..
I just find it shocking to compare this to Adam Thomson, I mean yes Adam Thomson misses 2 games Hore misses 5, there is clearly a difference, but is the punishment really that narrow? Maybe it's correct, maybe I want to see greater punishments, but I find it odd how Attoub (yes it was horrendous gouging) can receive over a year, yet this receives just over a month... I rate things like gouges as 10/10, spears can be between 4-6/10 (the old spear tackles!!! not these new spear tackles that we all knew as dump tackles...), and this sort of stuff from Hore ranging between 5-8/10. But maybe I expect too much...
I agree, I have been one to say "where is the consistency", which I will admit is obvious... it's consistently weak. I suppose what I mean is, "can we have some harsh punishments for bad acts, and leave the small 2-3 week bans for the not too bad acts"..
I just find it shocking to compare this to Adam Thomson, I mean yes Adam Thomson misses 2 games Hore misses 5, there is clearly a difference, but is the punishment really that narrow? Maybe it's correct, maybe I want to see greater punishments, but I find it odd how Attoub (yes it was horrendous gouging) can receive over a year, yet this receives just over a month... I rate things like gouges as 10/10, spears can be between 4-6/10 (the old spear tackles!!! not these new spear tackles that we all knew as dump tackles...), and this sort of stuff from Hore ranging between 5-8/10. But maybe I expect too much...
matt November 29, 2012 5:40 pm
I think a better system for punishing would be to have set punishments for offences like we do now, but rather than reducing it for previously clean players there should be the option to substantially increase bans for players who have repeatedly failed to heed warnings and play within the rules.
This seems better to me because the result of his ban is that his offence has effectively been considered one of "medium" severity, which it obviously is not, and no doubt part of the reason for this remorse and regret is that he was caught doing it centre shot of half a dozen cameras.
So basically I think that the citing procedure's impact discretion should be to make players who have routinely shown little respect for the rules (Henry Tuilagi, Burger etc) suffer proportionately rather than to make excuses for other player's occasional lack of control.
This seems better to me because the result of his ban is that his offence has effectively been considered one of "medium" severity, which it obviously is not, and no doubt part of the reason for this remorse and regret is that he was caught doing it centre shot of half a dozen cameras.
So basically I think that the citing procedure's impact discretion should be to make players who have routinely shown little respect for the rules (Henry Tuilagi, Burger etc) suffer proportionately rather than to make excuses for other player's occasional lack of control.
Pretzel November 29, 2012 8:21 pm
Matt,
I like that idea, punish ALL the offending players, but punish those further that are re-offenders, I think that is a very good idea. The "deed is done" as such, and it doesn't matter if it's a devil of a player: Cudmore/Botha etc, or whether its an angel: McCaw anyone? :P The punishment should fit the crime, and then when you see that it is the Cudmore's or the Botha's etc you can say "well you didn't learn your lesson last time, have another week"...
Great idea!!!
I like that idea, punish ALL the offending players, but punish those further that are re-offenders, I think that is a very good idea. The "deed is done" as such, and it doesn't matter if it's a devil of a player: Cudmore/Botha etc, or whether its an angel: McCaw anyone? :P The punishment should fit the crime, and then when you see that it is the Cudmore's or the Botha's etc you can say "well you didn't learn your lesson last time, have another week"...
Great idea!!!
Binnsy3 November 29, 2012 6:20 pm
Everyone knows, if you are on the oppositions side and you mess about your going to pay for it. Hore did nothing wrong and Davies just got caught doing illegal play.
Pretzel November 29, 2012 8:23 pm
Binnsy, I'd keep your eyes peeled for Billy Goats Gruff if I were you...
Reality November 29, 2012 8:40 pm
Binnsey3, I couldn't agree more. It's similar to this incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSHtgkRzLeU
Apparently the girl here didn't have a friendly face, so she obviously got what was coming to her. Just like Davies. If you dither a bit on the pitch, you obviously deserve a savage blow to the head. If more people could do what Hore and this guy did, the world would be a better, more civilised place.
Apparently the girl here didn't have a friendly face, so she obviously got what was coming to her. Just like Davies. If you dither a bit on the pitch, you obviously deserve a savage blow to the head. If more people could do what Hore and this guy did, the world would be a better, more civilised place.
Frenchie November 30, 2012 6:36 am
Very shocking decision... double standard in rugby?it seems we're close to that.
Paddy O'Brien must be pleased.
Paddy O'Brien must be pleased.
Scottjoz December 02, 2012 1:18 am
I think the biggest problem I have with this sort of play is the intention to injure. I grant that Davies was trying to obstruct Hore but that happens in every single rugby match, it warrants a good shove out of the way at most, and I think any good referee would allow that kind of play to occur.
I know there's some major discrepancies between the two but there was a pretty major incident in the NHL a few years ago where one player broke another player's neck with a similar sort of play (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpKa2ARS8tU ) so in my mind any sort of sucker punch from behind, should receive a way longer ban than 5 weeks.
FFS when you put someone in the hospital with a head injury you're now talking about serious brain damage, if you want the really dirty stuff out of the game then you need to punish accordingly.
I know there's some major discrepancies between the two but there was a pretty major incident in the NHL a few years ago where one player broke another player's neck with a similar sort of play (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpKa2ARS8tU ) so in my mind any sort of sucker punch from behind, should receive a way longer ban than 5 weeks.
FFS when you put someone in the hospital with a head injury you're now talking about serious brain damage, if you want the really dirty stuff out of the game then you need to punish accordingly.
Max December 07, 2012 4:57 pm
knee to the head wasn't intentional which was what caused the knock out (i think) and although its still disgusting and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone, you could say this is karma for what davies did to ryan in the 6 nations
Commenting as Guest | Register or Login