@ACT-Crusader said in Bledisloe 1:
And if you are league supporter, just be sure to remember that whatever sanction a judiciary spits out there is a premium on top of that for any Warriors
Using the WE CAN'T PUNISH FANS AT FINALS TIME clause, because... well..... 
Haru
Good to know they're still chugging along.
Always packed when I go back, bookings essential!
For more dodgier but very authentic cuisine , Beijing Hotpot is also awesome
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
But let's think about the real victim here
Poor old Darcy misses two tests ...Have seen a few reactionary posts on the socials calling for a Swain to be banned for 9 months
Regardless of the punishment in this case being too short, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean any red cards where a player is not out of the game injured means no ban?
(Yes I'm being facetious)
I hope you are being facetious because the logic is flawed.
Indeed - there would still need to be a minimum sanction handed out, which is why the judiciaries have a big table of entry points... which they henceforth ignore because Good Bloke Showed Remorse With No Priors Or If There Are Priors Get A Letter From The Victim You Scratch My Back I'll Scratch Yours clause.
Let's say this involved a player with a pre-existing injury or area of concern e.g. they'd had a reco on that knee two years before. Are we then going to have a process where it goes full legal eagles to sort out attribution?
If the player recovers early, do we let the offender back on the park?
If it is career ending because of poor rehab or a player who was nearing retirement anyway, do we rub out the offender as well? For how long?
It needs more thought than just the heat of this moment. I come back to the fact this should be more about intent than outcome.
It was a shit move by Swain and he shouldn't be playing again this year IMHO. He had the prior from a few months ago and therefore the judiciary should have thrown the book at him and gone for high-end as a minimum, to get other players to stop this sort of behaviour.
Agreed. I don't think one can bring in the career-ending criterion, season-ending might be enough (or more than enough). Above all there needs to be a way to demonstrate consistency internationally.
Unless it’s the same panel doing the adjudicating across the world then you simply are not going to get it. Consistency is sort of like the unicorn in sport. The way I see it, no two incidents are the same no matter how much fans and commentators might want to say they are. Then you add on legal argument, history of offending and you will get different outcomes for what seems like similar incidents.
And if you are league supporter, just be sure to remember that whatever sanction a judiciary spits out there is a premium on top of that for any Warriors and Kiwi players 😉
@Nogusta said in Auckland v Taranaki:
Hmmmm...my mail had RTS starting at right wing for this one.
Now that is interesting.
@taniwharugby said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA outside the laws of the game is likely to be looked at slightly differently if it made it to a real court, not SANZAR/IRBs Kangaroo court
I meant in terms of whether the governing union would protect a player who had done something particularly egregious. How is the employment stipulated in that contract in the event of them e.g. punching a match official?
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
Above all there needs to be a way to demonstrate consistency internationally.
@Nogusta said in Auckland v Taranaki:
Hmmmm...my mail had RTS starting at right wing for this one.
interesting sounds like a request from higher up? any "unofficial" truth to the NRL rumours?
Hmmmm...my mail had RTS starting at right wing for this one.
