Digby banned for five weeks

[suckerforred]

And I have known a death from such a tackle. They should not be allowed.... Consistancy of sanction is the problem.

 

[Dan54]

Yep Suc, not disputing that just pointing out a couple of things. I think I am just a pedantic prick on a sunday

 

[Ruggo]

The system needs to judge the offence rather than the result. Far to often we see the action judged on the result rather than the action itself. I don't condone foul play but I see an increasing level of players milking milage from incidents and unless we want to end up like soccer, we need to put a stop to it. The Digby tackle is a good example of this as the Sharks six put on a right old performance on the ground and was strait back on his feet when he got the result he was looking for.

 

[Da Munch]

I can't believe this has got 13 pages.
Just a quick recap on what's been discussed;

• it was a dangerous tackle and deserved a ban (fwiw I think 5 weeks was appropriate given his priors, but not the original 8 weeks)
• the sanzar citing system is shit and full of inconsistencies - Polki on AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) not cited (note: see Stu Berry's quote posted by Cave Dweller and the fact his shoulder hit the ground first), Strauss gets 2 weeks (which seemed a bit light for me given how bad the tackle was but he had no priors) and a few others non citing's were included, notably one on Barnes ... and then we get to Ranger (yes dan it's not a tip tackle but we talking inconsistencies here not "10.1" and even the mungos ban that sort of behavior, see storm-slater and it was every bit as dangerous as anything I've seen this year, at the least) he was up for two things, had priors and got 2 weeks
• lots of conjecture about the NRL system (fwiw you only have to look at some of the decisions around state of origin to see how bad it actually is) and the AFL (I follow AFL and can think one really bad one, which was in the favor of my team and Barry Hall getting to play the 2005 GF)

hopes that helps you all!