Not sure the system makes sense. I find it mindboggling that there is radio silence from Super Rugby on this. It's like they're pretending it didn't happen.
I would accept if they put out a statement saying that they've reviewed it and deemed that due to mitigating circumstances or low-level head contact etc etc that no action is needed. But to yellow card Hunter the week before for the same tackle and also sanction him for the other tackle that was reviewed and cleared in real time just shows you how inconsistent the process is. Confusing.
Valid frustration but equally you can't expect them to provide a running commentary on decisions either way.
Raises more questions like
- which incidents do you comment on, and how do you decide what they are?
- how much detail do you provide?
- what is the net outcome? Does the public truly get benefit out of it - or does it just create more noise and erode trust further (only need to look at the referee decisions thread to see their is rarely universal agreement of the application of law, in most circumstances)
NRL just today are reporting they are going to stop doing this exact thing because it added no value, and did more harm then good.
Also, I get the frustration but the Hunter tackle and this one we're completely different tackles so no way you can compare them and the outcomes to draw a parallel. FWIW - I believe in both cases they are wrong (Hunter should have been cleared at judiciary and Dolly should have at least seen yellow)