Monday Nov 26, 2012

Andrew Hore cited for off the ball stiffarm on Bradley Davies

Andrew Hore cited for off the ball stiffarm on Bradley Davies
111
Comments

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

111 Comments

  •  max
    max

    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

    Reply
  •  danknapp
    danknapp

    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.

    Reply
  •  danknapp
    danknapp

    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.

    Reply
  •  scottjoz
    scottjoz

    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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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..

    Reply
  •  frenchie
    frenchie

    Very shocking decision... double standard in rugby?it seems we're close to that. Paddy O'Brien must be pleased.

    Reply

  • Notice: Trying to get property 'data' of non-object in /var/www/html/php/vo/Comment.php on line 19
  • 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.

    Reply
  •  jimothy
    jimothy

    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'!

    Reply
  •  reality
    reality

    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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    Binnsy, I'd keep your eyes peeled for Billy Goats Gruff if I were you...

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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!!!

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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...

    Reply
  •  matt
    matt

    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.

    Reply
  •  matt
    matt

    I just watched the six nations incident and you're right, Davies deserves zero sympathy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6xxo75RkCw

    Reply
  •  reality
    reality

    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?

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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...

    Reply
  •  katman
    katman

    All we want is the same inconsistency for everyone.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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...

    Reply
  •  waikato886
    waikato886

    Too many people on here complain too much. All Blacks dont get special treatment.. NH teams just need to up their game.

    Reply
  •  joeythelemur
    joeythelemur

    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.

    Reply
  •  chilldoubt
    chilldoubt

    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.

    Reply
  •  katman
    katman

    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.

    Reply
  •  gonzoman
    gonzoman

    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...

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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!

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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*

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    Yes I have, have you? You are aware that obstructing a runner is "illegal" aren't you?.. This isn't American Football..

    Reply
  •  keenan7
    keenan7

    a clear out? really?

    Reply
  •  keenan7
    keenan7

    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

    Reply
  •  paul65
    paul65

    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?

    Reply
  •  llyrd
    llyrd

    Bradley davies penalised for obstruction? Have you played a game of rugby in your life?

    Reply
  •  stroudos
    stroudos

    That decision is almost as cowardly as the blindside cheapshot itself. Absolutely disgraceful.

    Reply
  •  paino14
    paino14

    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...

    Reply
  •  katman
    katman

    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.

    Reply
  •  graceofbod
    graceofbod

    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.

    Reply
  •  yorffeo
    yorffeo

    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.

    Reply
  •  felipeg
    felipeg

    Haha, sure wales isn't in good shape. As for the incident, the amount of comments here speaks for itself.

    Reply

  • Notice: Trying to get property 'data' of non-object in /var/www/html/php/vo/Comment.php on line 19
  • 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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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...

    Reply
  •  barryt
    barryt

    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?

    Reply
  •  barryt
    barryt

    But Davies wasn't even looking at Hore! Anyway there's absolutely no need for a swinging arm up that high regardless!

    Reply
  •  rugbydump
    rugbydump

    That replay is actually included in the above video

    Reply
  •  andrej
    andrej

    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.

    Reply
  •  jonathansayer
    jonathansayer

    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.

    Reply
  •  smashhulk
    smashhulk

    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.

    Reply
  •  reality
    reality

    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)).

    Reply
  •  gonzoman
    gonzoman

    I dunno lads, put yourself in BD's shoes...no one likes a Hore that punches! (intended for comic relief)

    Reply
  •  gonzoman
    gonzoman

    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.

    Reply
  •  matt
    matt

    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.

    Reply
  •  joeythelemur
    joeythelemur

    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.

    Reply
  •  gonzoman
    gonzoman

    It's not quite the same as an attack from the front though...a punch from behind is a fair bit more dangerous.

    Reply
  •  brawnybalboa
    brawnybalboa

    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)

    Reply
  •  felipeg
    felipeg

    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.

    Reply
  •  macmurchu
    macmurchu

    But they've got hot girl links down the right hand side without being porn?

    Reply
  •  macmurchu
    macmurchu

    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!

    Reply
  •  macmurchu
    macmurchu

    What are you on about? The guy was out cold before he hit the deck. Muppet. Kiwi I take it?

    Reply
  •  rugbydump
    rugbydump

    Ballsy play (quick clip of it) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0gKMe4Me-U

    Reply
  •  waikato886
    waikato886

    No obstructive running? Mate, BD kept turning back to impede his run... but then again everyone does that...

    Reply
  •  frenchie
    frenchie

    - 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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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.

    Reply
  •  joeythelemur
    joeythelemur

    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.

    Reply
  •  joeythelemur
    joeythelemur

    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.

    Reply
  •  jeri
    jeri

    Cynical and reckless behaviour from Hore if not malicious. Should've been a yellow card at least.

    Reply
  •  browner
    browner

    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?

    Reply
  •  browner
    browner

    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

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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...

    Reply
  •  graceofbod
    graceofbod

    No sympathy for Bardley Davies after what he did to Donncha Ryan in the 2012 six nations.

    Reply
  •  eggman
    eggman

    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.

    Reply
  •  stroudos
    stroudos

    Bloody hell it's Jake The Muss!! About as much of a twat as him too.

    Reply
  •  stroudos
    stroudos

    Is there any other link to the story? I will not click on links to the Daily mail, on general principle.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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?

    Reply
  •  gonzoman
    gonzoman

    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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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...

    Reply
  •  waikato886
    waikato886

    I saw that too... HAHAHHA. Mustve been a dare to do it.. Lol. Or he has a thing for Crudens kicking style?... O_o

    Reply
  •  joeythelemur
    joeythelemur

    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?

    Reply
  •  katman
    katman

    You can spare me the cultural angle. That's not going to work on me.

    Reply
  •  waikato886
    waikato886

    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!!!! =)

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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...

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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...

    Reply

  • Notice: Trying to get property 'data' of non-object in /var/www/html/php/vo/Comment.php on line 19
  • 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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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..

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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...

    Reply
  •  katman
    katman

    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.

    Reply
  •  tedalicious
    tedalicious

    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.

    Reply

  • Notice: Trying to get property 'data' of non-object in /var/www/html/php/vo/Comment.php on line 19
  • 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.

    Reply
  •  guy
    guy

    That looked just as nasty so I agree that a 4 month ban would be a good starting point.

    Reply
  •  katman
    katman

    Obstructive running? No one's going to take that seriously. You're probably just trying to wind people up anyway.

    Reply
  •  guy
    guy

    Well, that moustache definitely makes him look like a player from the 70's.

    Reply
  •  foxtrot
    foxtrot

    This is an incident comparable to Bakkies headbutt on Jimmy Cowan and so should warrent a similar ban.

    Reply
  •  rufio
    rufio

    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??

    Reply

  • Notice: Trying to get property 'data' of non-object in /var/www/html/php/vo/Comment.php on line 19
  • 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.

    Reply
  •  jimothy
    jimothy

    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?

    Reply
  •  reality
    reality

    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.

    Reply
  •  jimothy
    jimothy

    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!

    Reply
  •  reality
    reality

    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.

    Reply
  •  chilldoubt
    chilldoubt

    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'.

    Reply

  • Notice: Trying to get property 'data' of non-object in /var/www/html/php/vo/Comment.php on line 19
  • 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

    Reply
  •  ramrugby10
    ramrugby10

    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

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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...

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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!

    Reply
  •  backrowbulldozer
    backrowbulldozer

    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.

    Reply
  •  brolly21
    brolly21

    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!

    Reply

  • Notice: Trying to get property 'data' of non-object in /var/www/html/php/vo/Comment.php on line 19
  • 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.

    Reply
  •  facepalm
    facepalm

    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.

    Reply
  •  colombes
    colombes

    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

    Reply
  •  matt
    matt

    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

    Reply
  •  keenan7
    keenan7

    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.

    Reply
  •  keenan7
    keenan7

    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.

    Reply
  •  stereo_mike
    stereo_mike

    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

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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...

    Reply
  •  dcfurie
    dcfurie

    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.

    Reply
  •  barryt
    barryt

    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!

    Reply

Great Tries

View All

Big Hits & Dirty Play

View All

See It To Believe It

View All

Funnies

View All

Training Videos

View All

Player Features

View All
Andrew Hore cited for off the ball stiffarm on Bradley Davies | RugbyDump - Rugby News & Videos