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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
“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?
tsuru
Guest
Gold. I counted 6.
tsuru
Guest
My favourite from Buzo was "Norths played badly" and my favourite that I experienced was a boss who used to refer to "forward planning ahead."
Minz
Guest
Oh man, that'd be hilarious. We should all hope for it to happen!
bennalong
Guest
Not really a point. More a biased assertion.
Hayley
Guest
Yes because the attempted removal of McCaws eye that wasn't pulled up didn't effect his game. Or the rucking and stamping of his well known injured foot/ ankle area. Their were swings and roundabouts in that game, but like most people you are just looking at what you want to and your ignoring the rest of the game.
Hayley
Guest
Cane just played a game for BoP over the weekend so surely thats just his warmup for this weekend.
Pete
Guest
While careless there was no tackle in the air just a collision. Same happened to toomua against the Hurricanes I believe and what was the outcome. Play on. Sanchez did make a meal out of that also clutching his head when his head didn't even hit the ground. Then he ran into pocock and dramatically fell to the ground to try and disallow a legitimate try, THEN he got an open handed shove in the upper back and fell to the ground and lay prone to disallow a try, THEN his knees buckled underneath him when cooper popped an arm over his shoulder when chasing a terrible kick. There were FOUR separate occasions where Sanchez was diving. Out of those four he got: 1. A penalty (possible yellow with the rolling and clutching head antics) 2. Nothing 3. Two week suspension for an opposition player 4. Yellow card for an opposition player Not a bad result, that is encouragement to do some more diving. Well played dirty sanchez
Mad Mick
Guest
That' s why many of them decided to take up the whistle right?
Machooka
Roar Guru
Geez Harry... I'm giving you some big love on that one. Well done ! I strongly suggest you forward it to those muppets at SANZAR... not they're likely to take any notice of it. But just because you can, and should. Is 'testicle-ripping' the same as a 'squirrel grip' ? In Australia, some time ago, a couple of popular commentators... Messrs Roy and HG were great advocates of this manoeuvre as they claimed, rightly or wrongly, it required enormous skill to pull it off. I don't necessarily agree with this position as I've always worried about the ongoing effects of such an action. But would rather say that you'd need balls to do this sort of thing to another player. And frankly we don't need this in our game... dare I say, Rugby League is welcome to hold onto to it !
Iwillnotstandby
Guest
I'm sure if someone had an adverse finding made against them and it affected their income and employment, it would quickly become an actual court case. I'm not sure you could prove Sanchez took a dive and the open handed strike was very fast and energetic, so it's not completely outlandish to think he would have gone down but he should have then been taken off as per the concussion protocol.
bennalong
Guest
Good article Spiro! Reading the contributions from the Roar brigade however was depressing given the large number that seem intent on punishing Hooper. I want to know who looks after the players? These blokes are our best players and surely they deserve respect. They are workers in a trade and the over zealous application of sporting rules by judges who treat players as guilty of a criminal act are suppressing their right to ply their trade. (Given that judges in criminal cases are criticised for being soft, it's ironic they are so literal in rugby) When you have a tool like Sanchez trying to get Folau, then Pocock, then Hooper carded by histrionics without even copping a warning you are giving a not so subtle message that its OK to dive. Maybe that you should! Is this our way of improving our competitiveness with soccer? Where is RUPA? Pulver? Hawker? I think SANZAR is bringing the game into disrepute. Do we need it? Lets go back to three test series, one away, one at home. No BS international boy needed.
Phil O'Donovan
Guest
Best summation I have read.If it was the other way around and the situation was reversed Mr.Zavos and the rest would be all complaining about the injustt in the lack of severity of the sentence and the cynical mannor the suspension will be carried out.
richardislip
Guest
All points taken. The other point that has been made previously is this.........had it been an All Black who had committed the same " shove " on a Wallaby, and had it been ( most definitely ) a Springbok, guilty of that " shove" on a Wallaby......the entire Australian rugby community would be calling for a month's banning. Very much so. Hypocrisy abounds.
Harry Jones
Expert
Imagine a court proceeding in which every case has an alleged victim(s) and perpetrator(s) who are 100% identified and amenable to giving full statements, both sides are employed by sister franchises or unions within overarching authorities who set the standards of conduct, the misdeed complained of has a duration of less than ten seconds in a completely public setting, the entire event is videotaped by state-of-the-art cameras from various angles, the closest eye witnesses—if any—are 100% cooperative, the medical evidence is provided without need for subpoena, the misdeeds are almost always in familiar categories of illicit violence in almost identical scenarios, the alleged victim is not in line to receive compensation, the alleged perpetrator will not lose his freedom, motives are less important than the actual effect of the deed, and all parties have a vested interest in precipitating the decision because they must work together. Simple, no? Is there even a need for lawyers? Couldn’t each proceeding be run by experts of great distinction and finished within 24 hours, or 48 hours for the more complex decisions where video footage is not conclusive? Why not establish four or five levels of misconduct, using history of misdeeds to decide a sliding scale of wrong? Shouldn’t the whole procedure be transparent? Isn’t it important, to avoid arbitrary caprice, to harmonise the penalties for similar misdeeds using a common law philosophy, and explain distinctions? Well, SANZAR has found a way to prolong the citing process and infuse it with lawyers, make nonsensical and inconsistent precedent, and cloud all of it in mystery. Teams have 4 hours after each match to send a citing request to the ‘Citing Commissioner.’ A ‘Citing Commissioner’ is to have “appropriate rugby experience.” Why so long? Surely, if something is worthy of trying to take away a player’s match fees, it is known in the sheds immediately after the match. I would shorten that deadline to 2 hours. The ‘Citing Commissioners’ themselves have 12 hours to look for an incident worth citing. The ‘Citing Commissioners’ should watch the match live and then, after the team request deadline, immediately watch a recording. If nothing stands out to them within 2 hours of reflecting on what they just saw, they should decline to cite anyone. So, the final whistle sounds on Saturday at 21:00. By 23:00, the teams must have sent in their complaints. By 1:00 a.m. the next day, the ‘Citing Commissioner’ should have watched the game for the second time, looking for his own issues and the ones raised by the teams. Why the rush? Because it’s important to resolve these issues in time to plan for the next week, and because the proof, victims, and culprits are all available, largely undisputed, and simple. If for some reason, the ‘Citing Commissioner’ lacks crucial information (a medical report or a camera angle), then he should be able to delay his initial report by no more than 4 hours to obtain that. If it’s not available, it’s not available. Move on. SANZAR allows the ‘Citing Commissioner’ to decide the incident requires (a) no further action, (b) an “off-field” yellow card, or (c) a citation. A red card always, in effect, triggers the third prong. All citations and red cards are referred to the ‘Duty Judicial Officer.’ All white cards are investigated under the same timeline. Under my proposed streamlining, the ‘Duty Judicial Officer’ should have his entire docket for the week set on Sunday morning, at 6 a.m. as he rises to brew his coffee. Typically, this load is no more than ten cases, and in the Test season, may be as few as one or two. The video material to the issue should be in the Duty Judicial Officer’s electronic drop-box in as clean and high resolution and volume as possible, as of 6 a.m. the morning after the games at issue. There is no need for a final decision; only whether the matter will be referred to a full Judicial Hearing. To me, that decision (and all decisions about whether a citing will or will not occur) should occur on that Sunday (or Saturday, if the game was on Friday night) and within 4 hours of the Duty Judicial Officer receiving the packet. Thus, if the evidence and witnesses were assembled, the hearing, which often takes place via video conference, with both “sides” using lawyers, team officials, and witnesses, could occur as early as the afternoon after the match. In no event, should the hearing be set longer than 48 hours post match, in my opinion. If it is “complex,” it’s probably not that clear a violation. Or at least, it’s “just one of those things in life” that’s imperfect. At the hearing a Judicial Officer considers in detail all the evidence and submissions put forward by the player. This may include video evidence, evidence from the player or other players, evidence from the match officials, medical evidence and legal submissions. But this is where lawyers will take a mile if you give them an inch. I would kick the lawyers out, except in cases designated as ‘serious.’ By that, I mean, as in all of law, there is a basic distinction between ‘felony’ or ‘misdemeanour’ or ‘malicious’ and ‘accidental.’ Common sense could for the most part distinguish these broad categories. In all ‘less than serious’ matters, have rugby men decide it, rugby men argue, and rugby men live with it. (If they happen to be lawyers, like Conrad Smith or Jamie Roberts, fine). If ‘serious’ (eye gouging, testicle-ripping, wanton attack on a prone player), let the lawyers in. A Judicial Officer is supposed to impose a fair and proportionate penalty in accordance with the rules, but this is where the problem lies. They are not harmonising their decisions along a discernible precedential path. Part of the problem is the hearings are private. They should be open to the public, so that silly decisions are pilloried. They are also mandated to try not to go against a referee decision unless it is clearly wrong. I would rid them of that burden. Decide what is in front of you. The low, mid, and high end of offences in Regulation 17 and the ‘entry point’ with aggravating or mitigating factors have turned into a conflated brew of nonsense. ‘Good character’ is one of those factors in law that is easily abused. For many in the rugby world, a player like Jean de Villiers is clearly a ‘good character,’ and Eben Etzebeth is clearly a thug. What do they base this on? A record of citations? Come on. Etzebeth plays a position in which, in all of rugby, he is supposed to clean rucks and not be cleaned (i.e. he plays the man, not the ball), while de Villiers rarely has to toil in the trenches. Appeal rights should be drastically tightened. If a ‘non-serious’ penalty is less than two weeks, I would favour no appeal rights by player or SANZAR. It's like rugby. Minor mistakes are OK. What's not OK is turning rugby into litigation. If I want that, I'll just go to court, where the witnesses evade subpoena, the culprits often aren't known, the incident is purely he-said-she-said, and the stakes are liberty and financial ruin.
Nobrain
Guest
Peter I do not know from where you take that. After loosing 34 -9 I find very difficult to believe that the Arg camp would half complaint about this. For what I know the Argentine camp has not used anything similar to that ever. We are not used to do this since we do not have it domestically. So if you want to stern this conversation to your side pls come back with some facts.
Advrider-oz
Guest
Reading some of these comments here makes me yearn for days of yore, biff, rucking, punching through the scrum and more. What's happening here is that Rugby will become soft and governed by nannys. In which case it will not be a game of collisions but of commissions. God help us if that occurs. It's a physical game - really it is and should be, but maybe I'm missing something and the next thing is stop pushing in the scrum and on,y 2 to a tackle. In summary I have three issues. 1. Hooper should have really belted him. 2. Sanchez and others like him that dive should be subject to the same penalty as Hooper, and 3. Someone needs to belt SANZAR Oh and for all you that wrote / believe, he used a fist, no it was a vicious open hand, he's naughty etc - go watch soccer!
Shop
Guest
"There is loads of diving in rugby" is what you wrote. I'm saying NO there isn't. Sure it happens but it is not common and the players who do it are often called out for it. Compare it with soccer where it happens in pretty much every match multiple times it isn't anywhere near as bad. What is important is that displays like the what we saw from Sanchez last week should be heavily critized and punished. As for Richard gear playing halfback, I've got no idea what you're on about.
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Guest
Bruce that diving law looks great until you get to another tactic- 'Diving to get a breather and give the bench an extra run' That could turn the game towards an NRL type unlimited interchange game. I like the idea though.
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Guest
Michael Scott, your efforts here are well worded and logical, but apart from the time lapse since McCaw's 'offence' you have poked the hornets nest. The legal scrutiny invested in HooperGate does make recent events much more interesting, such as the one you have excellently analysed around the actions of McCaw upon Parra. I'm not surprised that you got the responses from across the ditch that you did. Prejudice needs no evidence, or enquiry. Case closed.
Michael Scott
Guest
It may be stupid. It may be valid. But to assert one or the other without attempting to show it leaves only an unsubstantiated assertion and does not contribute to the quality of a dialogue. This is not a case where either assertion is self-evident in the absence of argument, but freedom of speech includes freedom not to argue.