|
Opinionated Rugby Commentary - by Fans for Fans
Spill what you really think about events in the rugby world.
Super 15 Rugby Judiciary Confusing 2 views
25 February 2015 by The Swede Eaters
|
| |
|
Super Rugby judiciary decisions are confusing. Thoughts?
Super Rugby Round 2 saw three players given bans for relatively similar acts ranging from one week for Hayden Triggs of the Blues to two weeks for Owen Franks from the Crusaders (one of which will include a game during their bye) to five weeks for Kane Hames punching Dominic Bird in the face.
For me, there wasn't a huge difference between the three incidents, yet it seems funny that Triggs got only one week, while Hames got five weeks. I do admit, even as a Highlanders fan, that five weeks was probably fair for Hames given the nature of his punches at Dominic Bird which were probably slightly worse than the other incidents.
It is interesting too, that Triggs had his suspension reduced by a week because he was red carded during the game, while the others weren't red carded.
I think it is great when a players gets punished during the game with a yellow or red card as it means that the opposition gets to benefit, but it seems strange that Hames gets so much more than the others, and doesn't get his ban reduced because he wasn't punished by the officials during the game.
That is why I am not on the Super Rugby judiciary!
What do you think about the Super Rugby Judiciary Rulings?
http://www.superrugbytips.com/2015/02/super-rugby-judiciary-rulings-confusing.html
|
|
|
➜ Previous Story
Next Story ➜
|
|
Tags:
Super Rugby,
|
|
|
|
|
|