The Hooper appeal decision: What are the ramifications?

We have all seen the video of the Michael Hooper/Sanchez incident in Mendoza. We all have views about Nicolas Sanchez’s actions.

Be that as it may, he did not, apparently, commit any act worthy of a post-match citing, was not penalised on-field (Dean Mumm scored anyway), and there his part in the matter rests. The eventual one-week reduction in penalty was given on the basis of the player’s prior good record, not for provocation.

Hooper, on the other hand, was cited post-match for his “open handed strike”, on the basis it met the “red card threshold”.

He was found guilty of a breach of Law 10, and sanctioned with a low-end suspension. It is not the purpose of this article to discuss the way the suspension was implemented, something which has generated a lot of comment on social media.

The purpose is to consider the interpretation of Law 10 made by Mr Hampton QC, and to evaluate what may happen if it is consistently applied going forward by the match day officials, citing commissioners, and judicial officers. In order to do so, it is necessary to pay attention to the detail of what was found, and subsequently upheld on appeal.

First, the relevant law says this:

Law 10.4 “Dangerous play and misconduct”

(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).

Secondly, Mr Hampton QC decided as follows, extracting the relevant parts for brevity:

“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. 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.

“I found that this submission could not be accepted. Allowing open hand striking motions such as this of force to any part of an opposing player’s body could not be deemed an act within the laws of the game and not able to be sanctioned. Striking with an open hand could fall within the definitions of a breach of Law 10.4 (a) Punching or striking.

“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.”

Thirdly, the appeal committee stated that the player’s appeal was dismissed “on the basis that the appellant was unable to show that the Judicial Officer erred in law in finding that Hooper’s striking of Nicolas Sanchez from Argentina was a breach of Law 10.4 (a).” This is the description on the ARU web site; the committee decision is not yet available. The committee also dismissed the appeal as to sanction.

So, an open hand strike “of force”, or a punch, to “any part of an opposing player’s body” contravenes law 10.4(a), and meets the red card threshold. That it is a retaliation provoked by an illegal grab is of no consequence.

Readers might note that earlier this season Hayden Triggs punched an opponent’s face. His suspension was “low end”, two weeks, reduced to one for his good record and guilty plea, similar to Hooper’s sanction.

A few hours before the Mendoza game, Brian Habana was seen repeatedly “striking” the arm of Craig Taylor, when the latter was holding onto him at the back/edge of a breakdown.

He was not cited, and not suspended. What Taylor was doing, and whether it was illegal, is not relevant. Yet, despite punching Taylor on the arm about five times no action was taken.

Week in, week out, we see players, often scrum halves, grabbed and held by opponents near the breakdown. It is fair to say that sometimes the officials act and penalise this, particularly when the scrum half is grabbed.

But we also see players chopping and punching down on the arm holding them, trying to break the grip, both in that situation, and elsewhere around the park. Because of the Hooper decision, referees will now have to act on this.

If the now stated SANZAR judiciary view, as confirmed on appeal, is to be consistently applied, every time a player punches or strikes the arm of a player.

– Holding him/her back, illegally or not, that player should be under consideration for a red card. The decision of Hampton QC puts it on par, as a law breach, with a

– Closed fist punch to the face – whether or not the other player threw the first punch. The seriousness of the offence only goes to sanction, not breach.

An imbalance has arisen here. An imbalance between a usually minimal sanction for holding a player back – generally a penalty, if anything – and the impeded player trying to break the illegal hold. The penalty for the latter must now be that for deliberate foul play, because it’s been equated to punching.

Will this decision prove to be a sort of cheats’ charter? We’ll have to wait and see, but it would be naïve to think that some teams/players will not try to take cynical advantage of this and provoke an opponent.

So, the next time a scrum half has a whack at an arm illegally holding him, expect to see a penalty, at least. As it falls within the “dangerous play and misconduct” prohibitions, if the scrum- half hits that arm with a closed fist punch, several times, it’s the same as punching someone repeatedly in the head. Red card, surely?