Mon 5 Oct 2015 | 02:12

Michael Hooper cited for this dangerous cleanout on Mike Brown

37 Comments

• oldflyhalf

  8:23 PM 07/10/2015

  Referee, "the judge" of the rugby game and his assistants, the rules, what role longer have then ? ...probably, it's a matter, a lack, of basic education.
• stroudos

  8:47 AM 07/10/2015

  I wonder if we'll see the Aussies wearing "Justice for Hooper" armbands for the Wales match.....
  
  DrG Healy's headbutt charge should be red card any day of the week.
• drg

  9:39 PM 06/10/2015

  I think a lot of these incidents require teams to self police.. In reality, Healys one should probably have been a borderline red... Maybe yellow is too lenient, red too harsh? Players and teams should be far more disciplined that this. I would like referees to pick up on everything (not in my games..but..) but it's simply not feasible unless we have far more tmo, touch judge influence, and maybe even a few more ON field referees... in which case the game will slow down a lot more.
• drg

  9:35 PM 06/10/2015

  Oliver with regards to no back up, I didn't mean proof of incident, I meant back up the point you are making. Lewys post of cross to bear, was probably such that "it's our burden to worry about, no one elses"... I don't think he was saying this type of thing never happens to any other team in the world, ever.....
  
  All I mean is that you've done this a couple times where there has been a French player involved in an indiscretion, and instead of calling it out, you'll post a video of something similar with another nation, where the player was not caught...
  
  I'm glad to read that you think all these incidents deserve the same punishment.
• drg

  9:31 PM 06/10/2015

  I agree with you. I won't be one of those people that would say "IF this then DEFINITELY THAT"... because as you mentioned we don't know certainties which is exactly why we (and others) cannot be certain if it would or would not have affected the outcome.
  
  I think your last paragraph is why a lot of the pundits are saying ignore the fact England are out, pick another team to support and we'll go back to England at the end of the tournament.
• dancarter

  9:07 PM 06/10/2015

  I think the IRB just pick punishments out of a hat. The process makes no sense to me whatsoever. Considering Burgess + Hooper weren't punished during the match I think Farrell can almost consider himself unlucky to have been sin-binned. Obviously it was probably a yellow, but worse acts of foul play went unpunished during the game.
• oldflyhalf

  8:57 PM 06/10/2015

  "[...]1 week suspension..."
  
  This after in July -only 2 monts ago- Hooper has punched in the face on the argentinean player, in 4 nations ?! ...it is a sick joke, made IRB and SANZAR 2015.
• colombes

  1:43 PM 06/10/2015

  Does the irish anthem say "shoulder to shoulder"?
  
  More seriously, i agree that clear-outs are not penalised in the same way from a ref to another. Healy'one was even a headbut... I remember Bakkies Botha dismantling Jones shoulder during Lions Tour 2009. Was 1 week ban, just like Hooper.
• rugbydump

  1:17 PM 06/10/2015

  Hooper has received a 1 week suspension, so will miss the pool decider against Wales.
  
  Details here
• oliver

  12:57 PM 06/10/2015

  No backup? There's a link. And you can make up your own mind about it right? I thought my point was fairly obvious....
  Lewy's post of "oh us poor englishmen are always hard done by by the ref" seemed a little rich to me!
  
  To answer your question, I think both Hooper and Healy deserved a yellow card. As did Burgess and Farrell btw.
• stroudos

  12:11 PM 06/10/2015

  OK, we'll have to agree to disagree. Maybe I'm watching it with white-tinted glasses, but I still maintain Browny did enough here to release the Advertising Agency before going in for the ball.
• stroudos

  12:05 PM 06/10/2015

  Come now, Oliver. You must know by now, foul play doesn't count if it's against the French... ;)
• le1gh

  10:51 AM 06/10/2015

  Sorry, I feel that you are wrong stroudos. If you look Brown clearly doesn't leave him go after the tackle. He get's on to his feet whilst still holding him and continues then to burrow for the ball. Hooper is obviously frustrated by this "professional foul" and the red mist comes down. Brown only releases the player/ball the second before the missile launches, but as we know the button was already pressed by then.
  
  So yes Hooper should have been more professional in the way he cleared out the offender, an attempt at putting his arm out would have been his saving grace. But yet again England try to make out how innocent and hard done by they are, when in reality Brown could also quite easily have been carded for his professional foul in slowing the attacking teams ball down.
  
  You could also blame the referee and linesman for not pulling Brown up on his cheating. Perhaps the referee was going to pull Brown up, but when Hooper took the law into his own hands the ref realised that he may have caused Hoopers frustration and just penalised him? As we know some refs do allow for their mistakes in later decisions.
• drg

  10:50 AM 06/10/2015

  Oliver, I'm not sure on the point you're trying to make, but you have a strong habit of finding a current incident and relating it to an unpunished incident against the French but without any kind of back up. What is your direction with you comment? Are you suggesting Hooper does not get punished because Healy didn't? Are you suggesting Healy should have got punished?
  
  See to me, I think Burgess swinging arm and Hoopers flying missile should be punished, you showing me that video of Healy and I suggest that Healy should have been punished also....
• drg

  10:46 AM 06/10/2015

  No he/she didn't......
  
  They simply said they wonder if the decision not to card the guy would have affected many wider things and not only the game....
  
  I suggest you advance those basic comprehension skills...
• murph

  10:32 AM 06/10/2015

  "Not suggesting Australia didn't deserve the win."
  
  You just did. Learn to construct an honest argument because those of us with basic comprehension skills will see through it.
• stroudos

  9:15 AM 06/10/2015

  Yep. An embarrassment of riches...
• stroudos

  9:13 AM 06/10/2015

  ghfjur and Rukbe,
  I think you're misinterpreting that breakdown rule. Brown was the tackler, he did release the Advertising Agency, he was back on his feet quickly and was free to contest the ball from any direction. OK he didn't exactly clap his hands and do a pirouette to illustrate that he'd released, but it was quite clear that he had. No mitigation at all for the style of cleanout.
• oliver

  9:13 AM 06/10/2015

  your cross to bear?
  Oh poor you.
  I'd like to point out just a year ago, in 2014, Cian Healy did a similar and even more dangerous move, straight to Picamoles' head.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEvDBfZe0w
  
  Healy was not carded, not cited and we did not even get a penalty....
• katman

  7:57 AM 06/10/2015

  If Hooper gets banned, who will replace him? Do they bring Ben McCalman on at 8 and move Pocock to 7? Or Palu perhaps? Either way, they don't lose an awful lot. What they sacrifice in Hooper's ball poaching they make up in a big, hefty ball carrier.
• littlelewy

  7:14 AM 06/10/2015

  I have to agree with you stroudos... but what has to be asked is if the referee didn't see it, why didn't the assistant alert him, and why didn't the TMO step in like he did later in the game when Poite just wanted award a penalty for Farrell's infringement, but the TMO insisted on a yellow. With Hooper gone and Australia down to 14 just before half time things could have been different; with just 7 points in it when Farrell went the game just got taken away and Australia took advantage of the extra man with the next try.
  
  Being English, it's our cross to bear, I suppose.
• 7:05 AM 06/10/2015

  Hooper... what a turd!
  
  I hope he gets the maximum ban. Not because of the offence, even though this was by far the most malicious and intentional infringement of the tournament so far, we can all have a rush of blood when the only opposition player capable of turning the game around appears in your sights, but because of his football-like behaviour later in the game when Farrell was sin-binned - grinning and gesturing to the team.
  
  What a turd!
• ghfjur

  12:13 AM 06/10/2015

  Three wrong things with this one:
  
  1) Brown made the tackle fairly but then got to his feet to play the ball without clearly releasing the tackled player (no "daylight" - whether the tackled player didn't release the ball or not is a separate issue)
  
  2) Referee didn't penalise Brown's action
  
  3) Hooper stupidly joined the breakdown like a missile, most likely due to frustration due to 2) and wanting to get a try for his team.
  
  Hooper deserved a sanction heavier than a penalty based on the standards for the tournament but the whole sequence should be considered. Overall, good to see more technology employed against foul play at this RWC but consistency is still an issue.
  
  I hope that Australia don't do a tit-for-tat and cite Burgess for his tackle, the likes of which have been carded at the RWC.
• 10stonenumber10

  12:12 AM 06/10/2015

  It reminds me a bit of Du Plessis hoofing Leitch, had they stayed down, there would have been hell to pay... still amazed Brown kept his feet, most people would have been KO'd by that.
  
  Hooper's World Cup should definitely be over. Maybe a few extra weeks for kicking Genia in the face too
• drg

  12:05 AM 06/10/2015

  Actually, re watching it, nothing about that was in anyway legal... Even had he used his arms, he dove into the ruck, so he left his feet which in itself is legal...
  
  So if you combine the two, it potentially doesn't look good for Hooper... nor for my fantasy team....
  
  Not to mention if you consider he kicked a scrum half in the head in the process... he should be quadruply banned!
• drg

  12:01 AM 06/10/2015

  Not entirely sure who you're replying too...
  I'd imagine any one of the following, who made comments regarding the outcome of the game had Hooper been carded. However...
  Dan - Made an amusing comment, not showing anything but an acceptance for the hammering.
  Stroudos - Comment was very hat in hand, he was wanting to ask the right questions, but not get called out as "one of those guys" which he never has been (that I recall).
  hesychast - More or less talked about how much more there is to the game than just the game....
• colombes

  11:35 PM 05/10/2015

  I read somewhere the pair was nicknamed 'pooper' but i think they dont give a shit.
• stroudos

  11:16 PM 05/10/2015

  I agree with you on Robshaw's "bedside manner" with the refs. His body language is unhelpful. Looks like he's sulking.
• stroudos

  11:14 PM 05/10/2015

  I believe that is exactly what Dan said. ;)
• drg

  9:55 PM 05/10/2015

  Bit of a silly thing to do these days. Although I'm still unsure how Burgess escaped with just a warning.
• eddie-g

  9:25 PM 05/10/2015

  He plays angry, winds certain opponents up, big deal.
  
  He was fully entitled to contest that ruck, and plenty of players would have thumped Hooper for what he did. But he didn't, fair play to him.
• eddie-g

  9:18 PM 05/10/2015

  I did. He pinned Hooper to the ground and gave him an earful.
  
  I think that was pretty restrained in the circumstances.
• katman

  7:37 PM 05/10/2015

  To be honest, Robshaw's complaining to the referee is just plain ineffectual. Whenever you see him, he's having some gesticulating moan at the ref, and then he always walks away sulking. If he did that less often and saved it for the incidents when he really has a leg to stand on, he would have a far better success rate.
  
  I was watching Sergio Parisse in the Ireland game and the way he deals with the ref, and it's chalk and cheese. He never loses it or sulks. He immediately accepts when a situation is unsalvageable, and then he drags his insolent team mates away from the ref before they make him angry. I think a lot of captains can learn from his example.
  
  On this clean-out - I think it's a clear case of dangerous play and Hooper will likely get a couple of games off. Harsh, perhaps. But fair.
• 6:19 PM 05/10/2015

  I think you're right. The fact that Brown showed such good a) balance and b) character and c) self control may have cost him, and that can't be allowed to stand. And I too find this a difficult thing to claim neutrality on.
• danknapp

  6:07 PM 05/10/2015

  Had Hooper been carded, the game would have been completely different.
  
  Pocock would have had to destroy us at the breakdown on his own.
• stroudos

  4:55 PM 05/10/2015

  Well that's one way to secure quick ball...
  
  Looked like a canary yellow exocet on one view.
  
  That decision to give Mike Brown plenty of time to recover from concussion looks eminently sensible now....
  
  Trying to make humorous remarks rather than complain, for fear of it coming across as sour grapes....
  
  Even worse, I think what I'm about to say may be a bit footballery, but bear with me...
  
  Thought Brown did very well to stay on his feet after being smashed in the side of the head at that speed. Perhaps if he'd allowed himself to get knocked over and then rolled around a bit clutching his head, the foul play would have been more obvious and firmer action may have been taken. Yes, I think I'm suggesting that he should have milked it, the sort of behaviour I usually find deplorable, so I'm conflicted. (By the way, I also felt "Angry Mike" did well not to lamp Hooper once he had him pinned on the ground there).
  
  He probably didn't endear himself to the touch judge, barking in his face like that, but I can understand his frustration.
  
  Maybe Robshaw, as captain, needed to get involved here and demand that Poite have another look with help from the TMO. Appealing to the ref, another football vice that I generally despise, but I think there's a valid case here. In fact, I can't see Robshaw anywhere in this video, so he presumably wasn't close enough to see what had happened.
  
  Sour grapes and moot points perhaps.
  Would it have made a difference to the result? Probably not.
  But annoying that the Welsh will likely benefit from his absence next week. ;)
• eddie-g

  4:46 PM 05/10/2015

  Don't think it would have changed the outcome, to be honest. Pocock does the work of two fetchers already. But Hooper was very lucky not to be carded. The Aussies will now have everything crossed that any ban he cops is no more than a week.
  
  What made it so stupid was that had he attempted to bind, and he could very easily have done so, he'd probably be fine. Might not even have been penalized. But launching yourself into a ruck like that, leading with the shoulder, not binding... not clever at all. And fair play to Mike Brown, England's best player on the day, for not overreacting.