Comments on: This is the law

By: all_stormers

all_stormers — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 07:42:03 +0000

sorry the ‘no bonus for Brumies’ article

By: all_stormers

all_stormers — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 07:16:56 +0000

see post 26 of the Brumies article – the other nation’s have the impression SA are tugs – not very nice with situation for our players

By: KSA Shark

KSA Shark — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 06:06:50 +0000

How can they in the one breath say, that the citing commissioner acts if he believes the ref would have red carded the player had he seen the incident. In the next breath they say that if the ref acted and the citing commissioner feels the ref was not harsh enough then the player will be cited.

In effect they are saying whatever the citing commissioner thinks, is then taken as final. What a load of ****.

Further. Until the day that the Commissioner is from an independent union. We will have to put up with this **** of a SA player getting a 6 week suspension and an Australian only getting 2 weeks for similar offences because of “extenuating circumstances” for the Aus.

By: Cubiczirconia

Cubiczirconia — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:37:19 +0000

I agree that there should be some form fo standards eg: punching or throwing a punch and missing 12 weeks, biting 24 weeks, rucking the head 12 weeks, etc – if the IRB took this approach then there would be no complaints when players are banned.

By: YoMama

YoMama — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:25:56 +0000

I don’t know how there can be disciplinary hearing witout a common constitution.

If there were one then there would not be inconsistencies.

Seriously, when a player gets cited for repeated infringements and someone does not for punching then where is the constitution.

It would also be nice to have some consistency!!!