He was suspended so that means the judiciary thought it warranted a red card.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4
Duty Judicial Officer Nigel Hampton QC (Quade Cooper) assessed the case.
In his finding, Hampton ruled the following:
"That this was a reckless attempt by Landajo to free up the ball in the back of the ruck, resulting in him making contact with his boot on the hands of two Australian players. This was a lower end offence and, given the early guilty plea, Landajo’s contrition and his good playing record, appropriately could be dealt with by a one week suspension."
Personally I think the one week suspension is fine but I also think a yellow card in this incident would have also been a good outcome.
I accept that this differs from the IRB/SANZAR process however I think that it wouldn't be a bad outcome that an offence can be correctly ruled a yellow card at the time and still warrant a suspension.
My general thoughts on red card offences are that they should be fairly obvious that they will result in a suspension and hence warrant a red card on the spot.
A yellow card could easily result in a suspension but it will probably be on the lighter end of the scale if there is one and the referee isn't certain of that outcome at the time.
Where possible I think that there should be some parity between the punishment during the game and the suspension afterwards. A red card in a game and a 1-2 match suspension would seem to me to be a heftier punishment for the team from the card than the suspension.
