Jeff Probyn: Cuthbert’s knee-drop was as bad as Horwill’s ‘stamp’
Although Under Regulation 17.22.2 the IRB have the right to challenge any discipline decisions, the IRB have never used it to overturn a not guilty verdict and in fact have used the power only once before to increase a player’s one-week ban to two.
I must admit from the single angle video that I have seen, it does look pretty bad and even deliberate, but not having heard Horwill’s comments or had the ‘all angles advantage’, I would accept the judgment of an independent judicial officer who knows all the facts.
It may be that because Alun Wyn Jones received a cut to his face from Horwill’s boot, the Lions were incensed and that brought a knee jerk reaction from the IRB – but if having reviewed all the evidence Nigel Hampton was unable (even on the balance of probabilities) to find Horwill guilty of recklessness, the original decision should have stood.
Being reckless is by far at the lowest level when looking at the burden of proof needed to find a player guilty. It’s also the level that many discipline officers use if they feel that there is even the slightest chance that a player is aware where an opposition player is on the floor, if care isn’t taken where he places his feet and causes injury, even if unintentionally.
Over the last few years rugby discipline has undergone a fundamental change, from what was quite amateur to a sophisticated court-room style atmosphere, with lawyers representing those facing charges now common.
Horwill’s defence that he was knocked off balance by other players entering the ruck must have been supported by video evidence because it is unlikely that Hampton would have just taken Horwill’s word or given him the benefit of doubt, particularly as there would have been any number of video angles of the incident itself.
There is a view that any contact with the head is at best reckless, as every player has a duty of care to all other players on the field and any contact with another player’s head can and should be avoided. That though, does not make any allowance for the fast pace of a game nor the fact that accidents can and do happen.
It may be that the IRB have bought into the idea that indiscretions against the Lions on past tours have gone unpunished and they needed to show that it was not systemic practice.
Although there may have been times in the past when Lions players were targeted and could not rely on either match officials nor post-match discipline panels to protect them (Brian O’Driscoll in New Zealand 2005 or as far back as the Willie-John’s Lions 99 call), but things have changed with fourth officials and citing officers, all independent, that make it more likely that any offending player will be caught and punished.
Having said that, not all players cited are found guilty, one of the reasons for that is that for a player to be cited he has to have done something that would be deemed as a red card offence.
So, although a player may have done something that perhaps would merit a yellow card during the game, the citing would not be upheld as the offence would not be sufficient for the player to have been sent off.
What has surprised me is that given the number of Australian players that were injured in the first Test no Lions were cited, particularly Alex Cuthbert whose double knee drop onto a prone Pat McCabe brought a premature end to his game.
Admittedly, Cuthbert was following in on a ball that McCabe had dropped on to gather but Cuthbert could still have avoided dropping on to him, so by citing standards, Cuthbert was at least, if not more, reckless than Horwill.
With so much riding on the modern professional games, it is of fundamental importance that the IRB support the independent citing officers and judicial officers that they appoint to deal with any incidence of foul play.
Those officers should not be open to outside influences by any of the participating teams or management who try to manipulate what is reported and how it is punished.
It is right that the Lions or Australian management point out any incidents that they feel should be brought to the attention of the citing officer but ultimately it must be down to him if the case goes forward to a judicial review (disciplinary hearing).
After the decision re Horwill, the Lions naturally tried to draw a line under the
incident and move on but as Horwill will affectively be re-tried today, the repercussions could be far reaching and damaging to the game.
At the moment all Unions deal with domestic discipline matters themselves, leaving the IRB to appoint independent panels for all international competitions.
If the new hearing, under pressure from the IRB, were to ban Horwill it would set a precedent that could see all teams (international or clubs) appealing to the IRB to overturn the verdicts given by the IRB’s appointed judicial officers which, if they refused could see them embroiled in lengthy legal arguments.
If Horwill is banned and the Lions go on to claim the series it will be a hollow victory at the expense of the game.
