Hooper One Week Ban

[RedruthRFC]

Lynch the *******. Walk him through Brisbane naked and chant shame at him.

Nah, you're allowed to use a body double if you are required to do that!

 

[TobesHodges]

Lynch the *******. Walk him through Brisbane naked and chant shame at him.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Really? Would you say that it should have been assessed as being middle range or higher? It looked pretty clearly low end to me. As above, the low end minimum sanction is 2 weeks, but there is plenty of precedent for contrition, provocation and previous record seeing this lowered.

I was not talking about 'the letter of the law' there and I think most who feel he got of light aren't either. I did qualify my statement saying that I felt it was light in *relation* to other acts of foul play of equal or lesser danger (again, by my own estimates rather than what the law book says specifically).

Reading through my post again I see I should've probably gone on to specify that I was meaning all bans of all foul play. I see it just says 'bans' and you were surely assuming I meant regarding striking only. My bad. I see how it can be read other than to what I intended.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Nah, you're allowed to use a body double if you are required to do that!

If Hooper uses the same body double then I'm all up for the whole shame walk being the punishment.

 

[smartcooky]

I think it catches Sanchez on the side of the head, which is where he grabs on the ground. Watch in full speed, you can see the effect of the impact more clearly than in slow-mo.

Actually, it pretty clear that it is NOT a punch, but it IS a strike that lands either squarely on Sanchez's left cheek/jaw/ear area, or on the back left of his head.

- note how Sanchez' head jerks forward and to his right; that is irrefutable proof that the blow struck him on the head. If it was a strong push in the back, his head would have whipped backwards. Note also that Sanchez flinches just before the blow struck. This shows he saw it coming; hard to do for a push in the back unless you have eyes in the back of your head..

This is pretty much in line with what the JO (Nigel Hampton QC) said about it (my comments in red)

[TEXTAREA]"It was submitted on Hooper's behalf that the action he performed was part of an attempt to stop himself being held by Argentina player, Nicolas Sanchez. The action was described as a 'push with an open hand' and not a punch. It was submitted that this action was similar to a fend by a ball carrier attempting to stop himself from being tackled. (nice bit of spin) It was also submitted that the offence could not be made out as a strike because the law specifically lists the offences as the use of a fist, arm or elbow but not an open hand. (the law may not say hand but the regulations do; nice try Michael)

Hampton rejected that submission but noted that "video supports Hooper's account of events that he was grabbed intentionally by Sanchez, who maintained contact as he moved behind Hooper, causing him to become unbalanced (the Horwill Defence), rotate around and effectively run backwards. This action was done to prevent Hooper from supporting a team-mate who had the ball and was running towards the goal line. If Hooper was not held in this way, he could have supported his team-mate in a number of ways so that his team could potentially score.

"Hooper tried to extricate himself from the hold when he wasn't released by Sanchez. The actions of Sanchez while deliberate, illegal and an act of considerable provocation, do not allow for retaliation in an illegal way including striking the opponent. Hooper's account and the video support the notion that he did not punch the opponent in the face. However, it matters not where a strike lands on an opponent if there was indeed a strike.

"It was found that Hooper, in circumstances of considerable frustration and in order to try and rid himself of his opponent, drew back his free right arm and, voluntarily using additional momentum over and above that given to him by the actions of his opponent, struck out at the opponent's head and neck area with his open hand, making contact with the back of the opponent's neck and head with considerable, and intentional, force."[/TEXTAREA]

He got off lightly, and hastily arranging for him to be selected for some club match so that he could avoid being banned for a test match makes a total mockery of the judicial process.

- - - Updated - - -



WOT?

- - - Updated - - -

Really? Holding a player back in support close to the line in a try scoring situation wouldn't be a penalty try? Not even if Dennis offloads as he's being stopped and Hooper can't reach the ball because Sanchez is pulling his arm back? I reckon that'd be a fair case for a penalty try... I did stipulate "if he was closer to the line" after all.

It could be if there was no Argentine covering players, but there were!

 

[goodNumber10]

Actually, it pretty clear that it is NOT a punch, but it IS a strike that lands either squarely on Sanchez's left cheek/jaw/ear area, or on the back left of his head.

- note how Sanchez' head jerks forward and to his right; that is irrefutable proof that the blow struck him on the head. If it was a strong push in the back, his head would have whipped backwards. Note also that Sanchez flinches just before the blow struck. This shows he saw it coming; hard to do for a push in the back unless you have eyes in the back of your head..

This is pretty much in line with what the JO (Nigel Hampton QC) said about it (my comments in red)

[TEXTAREA]"It was submitted on Hooper's behalf that the action he performed was part of an attempt to stop himself being held by Argentina player, Nicolas Sanchez. The action was described as a 'push with an open hand' and not a punch. It was submitted that this action was similar to a fend by a ball carrier attempting to stop himself from being tackled. (nice bit of spin) It was also submitted that the offence could not be made out as a strike because the law specifically lists the offences as the use of a fist, arm or elbow but not an open hand. (the law may not say hand but the regulations do; nice try Michael)

Hampton rejected that submission but noted that "video supports Hooper's account of events that he was grabbed intentionally by Sanchez, who maintained contact as he moved behind Hooper, causing him to become unbalanced (the Horwill Defence), rotate around and effectively run backwards. This action was done to prevent Hooper from supporting a team-mate who had the ball and was running towards the goal line. If Hooper was not held in this way, he could have supported his team-mate in a number of ways so that his team could potentially score.

"Hooper tried to extricate himself from the hold when he wasn't released by Sanchez. The actions of Sanchez while deliberate, illegal and an act of considerable provocation, do not allow for retaliation in an illegal way including striking the opponent. Hooper's account and the video support the notion that he did not punch the opponent in the face. However, it matters not where a strike lands on an opponent if there was indeed a strike.

"It was found that Hooper, in circumstances of considerable frustration and in order to try and rid himself of his opponent, drew back his free right arm and, voluntarily using additional momentum over and above that given to him by the actions of his opponent, struck out at the opponent's head and neck area with his open hand, making contact with the back of the opponent's neck and head with considerable, and intentional, force."[/TEXTAREA]

He got off lightly, and hastily arranging for him to be selected for some club match so that he could avoid being banned for a test match makes a total mockery of the judicial process.

I read all this when you posted it on your Refs forum (I occasionally Lurk there), and i actually agree with your analysis.

i originally felt it was a heft shove in the back, but i do think he strikes behind the ear, as you say the head is the tell here....

I don't know how i feel about the sitting it out, it does make a mockery of the judicial process but then maybe if the process can be so easily circumvented there is a bigger issue here than just Hooper getting essentially no ban.

 

[Horacito]

It isn't fair, probably, but he got carded last year for shoving his ass into the same players face in the same stadium last year.

I can see where he gets his strenght as a player, but perhaps he could calm down a bit and stop damaging his team for nor reason when your are winning for 10+ points.

 

[RoosTah]

He got off lightly, and hastily arranging for him to be selected for some club match so that he could avoid being banned for a test match makes a total mockery of the judicial system

Actually, the judicial system itself is something of a mockery. I've been saying for 10 years that the very fact the punishments are in weeks and not set matches for grades is just stupid. Indeed, Rugby has to have one of the most inconsistent, uneven and selective judicial systems in world sport.

 

[austingtir]

A one week ban that they basically flouted by naming him for Manly? The whole judicial thing is a bloody joke. Either they go way overboard and give way to many weeks or they give one and the Union and player just flout around it.

Its clear that the Argentine player didnt take as big a dive as was first thought. He might of milked it a but imo he has every right to under THESE circumstances. If he can **** Hooper off enough for him to do this I say he should keep doing it.


The PC brigade will be along shortly im sure. Ehh they already here after reading the rest of the thread....


Did the Australian union seriously delay the hearing so they could name him in this side obviously specifically to flout the judicial system? If thats the case World Rugby and SANZAR should be getting taken to task by the Media.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Actually, it pretty clear that it is NOT a punch, but it IS a strike that lands either squarely on Sanchez's left cheek/jaw/ear area, or on the back left of his head.

- note how Sanchez' head jerks forward and to his right; that is irrefutable proof that the blow struck him on the head. If it was a strong push in the back, his head would have whipped backwards. Note also that Sanchez flinches just before the blow struck. This shows he saw it coming; hard to do for a push in the back unless you have eyes in the back of your head..

This is pretty much in line with what the JO (Nigel Hampton QC) said about it (my comments in red)

[TEXTAREA]"It was submitted on Hooper's behalf that the action he performed was part of an attempt to stop himself being held by Argentina player, Nicolas Sanchez. The action was described as a 'push with an open hand' and not a punch. It was submitted that this action was similar to a fend by a ball carrier attempting to stop himself from being tackled. (nice bit of spin) It was also submitted that the offence could not be made out as a strike because the law specifically lists the offences as the use of a fist, arm or elbow but not an open hand. (the law may not say hand but the regulations do; nice try Michael)

Hampton rejected that submission but noted that "video supports Hooper's account of events that he was grabbed intentionally by Sanchez, who maintained contact as he moved behind Hooper, causing him to become unbalanced (the Horwill Defence), rotate around and effectively run backwards. This action was done to prevent Hooper from supporting a team-mate who had the ball and was running towards the goal line. If Hooper was not held in this way, he could have supported his team-mate in a number of ways so that his team could potentially score.

"Hooper tried to extricate himself from the hold when he wasn't released by Sanchez. The actions of Sanchez while deliberate, illegal and an act of considerable provocation, do not allow for retaliation in an illegal way including striking the opponent. Hooper's account and the video support the notion that he did not punch the opponent in the face. However, it matters not where a strike lands on an opponent if there was indeed a strike.

"It was found that Hooper, in circumstances of considerable frustration and in order to try and rid himself of his opponent, drew back his free right arm and, voluntarily using additional momentum over and above that given to him by the actions of his opponent, struck out at the opponent's head and neck area with his open hand, making contact with the back of the opponent's neck and head with considerable, and intentional, force."[/TEXTAREA]

He got off lightly, and hastily arranging for him to be selected for some club match so that he could avoid being banned for a test match makes a total mockery of the judicial process.

- - - Updated - - -



WOT?

- - - Updated - - -




It could be if there was no Argentine covering players, but there were!

Cooky, will there be a review of the judgement handed down? Like they did last year (I think) when a Saffa got off lighter than expected?

Why are the sanctions handed down lately so light? Is it because the judicial officers feel that they don't want to be held accountable for a player to miss his chance to play at the World Cup? If so, why don't they use the same idea that was used earlier in the year with the Cricket World Cup where players got "amnesty" for previous indiscretions prior to the World Cup.

 

[smartcooky]

Cooky, will there be a review of the judgement handed down? Like they did last year (I think) when a Saffa got off lighter than expected?

Why are the sanctions handed down lately so light? Is it because the judicial officers feel that they don't want to be held accountable for a player to miss his chance to play at the World Cup? If so, why don't they use the same idea that was used earlier in the year with the Cricket World Cup where players got "amnesty" for previous indiscretions prior to the World Cup.

That would be up to SANZAR.

IMO they have the entry point (low end 2 weeks) right and one week mitigation for clean record right so there isn't really anything to appeal. The issue for me is how the ARU are flouting the suspension. It would be up WR to address this if they object.

 

[General Tah]

http://m.foxsports.com.au/rugby/san...hes-cross-appeal/story-e6frf4pu-1227465383909

Unbelievable. SANZAR are fools.

 

[Mcfadden]

Yep, kinda already knew that though. After witnessing the shenanigans in this year's Super Rugby, and the lies they gave reporters around individual player bans, it was pretty clear that they are nothing but a gang of idiots.

 

[goodNumber10]

so if the ban is appealed does that mean Hooper is now free to play for Manly this weekend?

 

[RoosTah]

Appeal dismissed.

 

[General Tah]

Common sense

 

[RoosTah]

Common sense

Indeed it was, but with this lot common sense is always a bit of a long shot

 

[smartcooky]

I don't really understand what SANZAR was hoping to achieve with their appeal. There was always going to be mitigation for Hooper's clean record, and since the entry point for this offence was Low End (two weeks), the only way they could have got a more severe ban was to argue that the entry point should have been Mid Range.
While I agreed with QC Nigel Hampton's assessment that this was striking, I can't see how a Mid Range entry point could be justified.


ETA: Its also worth also noting that the ARU's appeal, in which they were trying to argue that hitting an opponent with an open hand is not striking, was also dismissed (and rightly so).
I think we can expect WR to close that loophole in the 2016 Laws.

 

[nzlizard]

I reckon it's BS that he gets to sit it out in the Shute Shield......no punishment at all.

One week was a fair result given his clean record, however to bypass the ban with a bull**** reserve spot is not right, this needs to be clamped down on.

Don't really care, would rather play them at full strength at Sydney to see what we're made of.

This as well, always prefer to beat sides at full strength.


My main question why was no retrospective action taken against Sanchez, he was the just as much to blame and his behavior should have at least been cited.

 

[SelimNiai]

One week was a fair result given his clean record, however to bypass the ban with a bull**** reserve spot is not right, this needs to be clamped down on.



This as well, always prefer to beat sides at full strength.


My main question why was no retrospective action taken against Sanchez, he was the just as much to blame and his behavior should have at least been cited.

Because what Sanchez did wasn't a bannable offence. Penalised on the field yes but you can't ban someone for obstruction