The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

SPIRO: SANZAR should have booted out Sanchez, not Michael Hooper

2nd August, 2015
Advertisement
Ben Smith - pictured here with the All Blacks - is currently in his sixth year of a remarkable period of great form. (AAP Image/Paul Miller)
Expert
2nd August, 2015
249
8981 Reads

Nigel Hampton QC squared a sort of vicious circle with his SANZAR judicial hearing finding that Wallaby flanker Michael Hooper “contravened Law 10.4 (a) and is suspended up to and including Saturday, 1 August 2015.”

This decision that was worthy of King Solomon in its judiciousness recognised that Hooper had punched or struck an opponent, the Pumas number 10 Nicolas Sanchez.

It recognised that Sanchez had been “grabbed intentionally” by Sanchez, an action that “was done to prevent Hooper from supporting a teammate who had the ball and was running towards the goal-line.”

It recognised that while the actions of Sanchez were “deliberate, illegal and an act of considerable provocation” they did not allow “for retaliation in an illegal way including striking an opponent.”

It recognised that Hooper’s account and the video “support the notion that he did not punch the opponent in the face” but that “it matters ho where a strike lands on an opponent if there was indeed a strike.”

Here is Hampton QC’s summing up of the Hooper case: “After taking all the relevant facts into consideration, I found that the striking offence was committed. I found the incident to have a lower end entry point which stipulates a two-week suspension. I have found no aggravating factors to be present but did find a number of mitigating factors including Hooper’s good character and repute along with his good disciplinary record. On that basis, the maximum allowed reduction of 50 per cent was given to the Player, reducing the period of suspension to 1 week…

“… The player has a close allegiance to the Manly club who have an important match this weekend and he expressed his desire to play in the match following the Argentina-Australia match. Under Regulation 17, all matches are equal and if a player is scheduled to play, then the match should be included in the suspension if it has meaningful consequences to the player.”

I have quoted extensively from Hampton Q.C’s review finding because it is important in trying to understand what possible reason SANZAR might have to challenge this judgment. The relevant arguments and details teased out properly. Eminently valid and sensible judgments are made to arrive at what is obviously a judicious finding.

Advertisement

So the question needs to be asked, what was SANZAR up to in challenging Hampton Q.C’s judgment?

Let us go to the documents again. On Friday 31 July at 6.50pm SANZAR issued a media release: SANZAR appeals Michael Hooper hearing outcome:

“An appeal has been lodged against the outcome of a judicial hearing on Wednesday 29 July and Thursday 30 July that found Michael Hooper of Australia quilty of contravening Law 10.4 (a) and issued a sanction of one-week suspension.

“Under the SANZAR Judicial Rules, all formal judicial hearings are reviewed by an independent Appeals Review Officer. The review officer, the Honourable Graeme Mew (Canada) has examined the Hooper case and in his determination, referred it to a SANZAR Appeals Committee to review the sanction handed down by Judicial Officer Nigel Hampton QC.

“A SANZAR Appeals Committee, chaired by Jannie Lubbe Sc, with Terry Willis and Mike Heron QC as members, will hear the appeal via video conference on Sunday 2 August 2015 at 5 pm AEST, 7 pm NZST, 9am SAST and 4am ART.

“SANZAR will not be making any further comment until the Appeal Hearing is complete.”

It should be noted, too, that the ARU let it be known that they were thinking about (officially “set to”) lodging a counter-appeal, believing that Hooper should never have been found guilty of foul play in the first place.

Advertisement

You would have thought, however, that the serious matter of reviewing a judicious, well-argued sanction would at least have forced SANZAR to provide some details on what was actually to be reviewed?

Planet Rugby in article headed, ‘The Hooper ban is a farce,’ insisted that the reduction of the sanction from two weeks to one week, with the convenient Manly-Randwick quarter-final providing the excuse for Hooper’s missed match, was the provocation that aroused SANZAR:

“You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that team sheet cooked up by the Wallabies input. It’s unbelievable that the story was bought at the judicial hearing, it’s inconceivable that – less than two months before the World Cup – Australia would let one of their star players run out in a club match a week before The Rugby Championship decider …”

Unbelievable, perhaps from Planet Rugby’s northern hemisphere perspective. But believe it because Kurtley Beale played in that quarter-final. According to the thinking of Planet Rugby, that Beale could not have been Kurtley Beale, Wallaby star player.

Unbelievable.

Getting back to the real issue, did the Hon. Graeme Mew believe that judicial mistakes have been made? If so what are the mistakes?

The Hon. Graeme Mew is a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. He has been a barrister in England and Wales since 1982. He is a member of the Court of Arbitration for Sport and a judicial and appeals officer for World Rugby.

Advertisement

My lawyer friends will recoil from this observation, but I am finding some difficulty in accepting the growing tendency for the rule of law to be trumped by the rule of lawyers.

This observation is based on the legalistic nature of these Hooper proceedings and, most importantly, the studied avoidance of any acknowledgement that the real culprit in this matter was Nicolas Sanchez, not Michael Hooper.

Around 7.45 pm on Sunday night, the announcement was made that after a 90-minute video conference, the SANZAR appeal was thrown out. This means that Hooper is eligible to play for the Wallabies against the All Blacks on Saturday night. Good.

Justice has almost been done in this case. I say “almost” because nothing has been done about the real culprit of the incident, Nicolas Sanchez.

If you look at the incident, you see Sanchez attempting to hold Hooper back as he runs through to support Dean Mumm in his stupendous charge to the try line of the Pumas.

Hooper gives Sanchez what seems to me, at least, to be a rather vigorous shove with an open hand.

What happens next is the crux of the matter. Sanchez makes a dramatic, better a melodramatic, dive. He lies motionless on the ground, as if had been pole-axed by George Foreman, rather than by a backhand slap.

Advertisement

It is this melodramatic dive and gratuitous action of lying prone on the ground that makes what Hooper did look so bad.

Throughout the Test, Sanchez was a serially diver. It is clear that the point of the dives was to win a penalties and perhaps sending offs of several Wallabies, including Hooper and Israel Folau.

Why the ARU did not create a huge controversy over the persistent diving of Sanchez, given the fact of the Hooper inquiry, is beyond me. In the days of John O’Neill all hell would have broken loose over the matter. Sanchez would have become a marked player and any diving would have got him into trouble with the referees and the review process.

Now that the Hooper matter is finally settled, what should happen now is that the ARU issue a statement calling on SANZAR to charge Sanchez. They must spell out in absolute terms that diving has no place in world rugby and divers, like Sanchez, must be hauled before the various rugby tribunals to be given hefty suspensions for foul, illegal play.

Right now, as the Hooper fiasco indicates, SANZAR and World Rugby turn a blind eye to diving, which if allowed to prosper as in the Sanchez example, will create a cancer in the rugby game, the way it has for football.

Take tough action now to get rid of it, should be the ARU’s message to SANZAR and World Rugby.

I noticed in the 2011 Rugby World Cup tournament, for instance, that France, with Morgan Parra leading the pack, were quick to take dives.

Advertisement

If the Sanchez diving tactics are allowed to flourish, diving could contaminate Rugby World Cup 2015.

What is needed is a directive that suggestions of diving will be investigated after every Test and under the foul play mantra divers will be put out for any number of subsequent matches, depending on the frequency and implications of the dive.

Even though Hooper is now totally cleared to play against the All Blacks, my sense is that Michael Cheika somewhat telegraphed his intentions about not starting him and David Pocock together with the announcement that a fit and refreshed Wycliff Palu has been returned to the squad of 31 for Saturday’s Test.

If Palu starts, as seems likely, only one of Pocock or Hooper will start. Against the All Blacks, with their experienced, big but not-quickish back three of McCaw, Read, Kaino, I reckon that Pocock will be the starter.

Later on during the game, though, I can see both of them on the field, and someone like Fardy or Mumm in place as lineout jumpers.

Against Wales, though, in the 2015 Rugby World Cup tournament, with their very fast backrow, Cheika could well start with Hooper, with or without Pocock in the pack.

All that is for the future. I was taken with some statements made by Michael Cheika about the Pumas adopting football-style diving tactics, “hamming it up,” and the implications of these tactics for the rugby game:

Advertisement

“I’ve had a long association with the Argentinians. I was really disappointed at the way that was going on. The guys I know and the generation before, that’s not their go at all. It’s important we make sure there is none of that going down and hamming it up in the game because that’s not good.”

This was an important statement to make.

Now Michael Hawker, chairman of the ARU, and CEO Bill Pulver should stand up within SANZAR and World Rugby against the diving menace. They need to show some leadership for once in defending the interests of rugby and the Wallabies, and not leave all the hard talking to Cheika.

Is this too much to ask?

close