Digby banned for five weeks

What a load of rubbish, in the NRL in Aus this tackle would've barely been the lowest grade as it hovered around the horizontal.

Strauss' tackle from the Cheetahs that got 2 weeks was worse than Ioane's. I'd be careful complaining about how Saffa players are harshly treated from now on, PB.

Just more incosistent rubbish from the S15 judiciary.

I agree Tiger, I not sure why Digby is not been considered an idiot for doing it, perhaps his first suspension didn't sink in!!!

Brave talk from the republic.or has Bakies retired?

To be fair Ash, because it ok in NRL doesn't mean anyting. Why are you attacking PB and bringing Bakkies into it, I haven't seen PB defending Bakkies??

five weeks????????? My gawd!!!!!!!

According to the IRB, the treatment for driving the player into the ground or dropping them from a height with no care is exactly the same.

Law 10.4(j) reads: Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.
A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:
- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)
- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)
- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient
Regular directives to Unions, Match Officials and Judicial Officers have been issued to reinforce the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance regarding dangerous tackles and the promotion of player welfare.
The policy was again reiterated to team officials at a Team Managers seminar in Auckland two weeks before the start of Rugby World Cup and during the Tournament and there have been a number of other Tip Tackle cases at Rugby World Cup 2011.

No, but the NRL grading system is light years ahead of the rubbish from SANZAR. For example, they have gradings for different sets of foul play, and points for each grade, where 100 points = 1 game. The NRL has loadings, carry over points, and bonuses for early pleas. SANZAR merely seems to have a random number generator to create ban times.

You can't say that the tackle on AAC being 0 weeks, Strauss (which was the worst of the three in my book) is two weeks, and Ioane being 8 weeks are anyway consistent.

Ioane deserved a ban, but frankly, that decision is farcical. Which is means that it's situation normal for the SANZAR citing commision. Ioane and the Reds can rightly feel ripped off by this decision.

Ah yes Oom "VOL KAK" PB stirring again I see..

Still struggling to see how Strauss got two weeks for dropping on a guy on his head, and Ioane gets 8 for dropping someone basically on their back.

I thought there was a shocking tackle in the Rebels/Cheetahs game that wasn't even a penalty as well. On a Cheetahs player, anyone remember it? In the 2nd half, near the halfway line. Cheetahs players were up in arms about it to the assistant.

For comparison, I have added the Strauss tackle.

You lot are quick to jump on the Saffer thug bandwagon and personal insult wont help the cause. The laws are clear on this and hopefull your Digby will learn his lesson.

You were quick to jump on the "Digby is a thug" bandwagon. Anyone that has played rugby before knows that sometimes a tackle can go wrong, and it's not usually called thuggish play.

Biting, gouging and headbutting is thuggish play.

van Heerden stayed down. convinced Poki was gone if AAC didn't get up.

Shouldn't he have gotten a similar sentence to Strauss? Almost identical tackles, except the tackled player in Digby's case milked it.

it will be most interesting to know 3 sets of facts regarding these these 2 massively disparate bans for very similar offences (the far longer one for what is clearly the 'less awful' of the 2): (a) precisely where were these two hearings held and (b) what 'judiciary' personnel for each ban event were in common, or not as the case may be and (c) whether in the interests of legitimacy and proper conduct, SANZAR will explain precisely why one ban on an SA player is 2 weeks and the other on an Aus player is 8 (reduced to 5).

Good luck getting that information. The SANZAR judiciary is the Pyongyang of rugby.

Surely Ash Sanzar will say rightly or wrongly that Digby got longer because he is a repeat offender. I am sure if it had been someone outside the Reds or Aus a lot would be saying serial offender etc .

What the fuck, all I ask is some consistancy. How was this tackle worth 3 weeks more then Strauss' or Hougaards? What a joke.