Digby banned for five weeks

Should be a red card for the offence there and then because someone is going to be paralysed by one of these tackles and then rugby is going to be in serious trouble. Citing and banning after the event is not stopping the practice so teams have to be damaged on the spot and a yellow is not enough. Think 5 week ban is harsh when you consider Bradley davies got 7 for doing something 10 x worse off the ball. There has to be consistency in the whole game North and South on this because the danger to the game is so great; Can you imagine the increase in insurance premiums for rugby clubs if a player is paralysed live on television because of an act of foul play? I really don't undertand why players in some countries, the Welsh being the worst offenders, affect these tackles and seem incapable of following the directive to make sure the man is returned safely to the ground. The citing and banning proces throughout the game is a completely load of bollix though.

I hope When Digby gets back to Oz, he goes into therapy. The poor guy just got sodomized by SANZAR.

What do players need to do to get a good repor? Hold babies at every press conference? If SANZAR is going to use history as part of their judicial system, then they need to look at everything the guy has done in the past, ie off field charity work, promoting for the better of the game etc. I guess it is only a demerit system.

Even demerit points are expunged after 3 years..

One of his fans tweeted ".. What would SANZAR know about rugby anyway", he replied "I dnt know" I replied to get him to delete, and if he does I'm going to delete this post as well.

the only legitimate complaint about this is the inconsistency

yeah that was the one I was referring to

Reds, I assume I am one of the defenders you speak of, as I pointed out , I thought it was 4 weeks before it went to Judiciary, I thought they would be harsh on him, and I didn't realise that this was his 3rd as it turns out of this offence, so am thinking it probably on mark. As has been said Digby pleaded guilty to Dangerous Tackle, so even he knew he did it, and although as a Reds fan you wouldn't maybe see it that way, especially as you see him as game buster. Anyway I reckon I posted enough about this post, and very surprised that very few of the people who are upset are not upset at Digby who actually did the tackle,and has admitted it, which is what has pissed me off , as I was hoping for some good results from Reds over next few weeks and he has let team down.

Nothing in it. Cipriani saying he can't "not sure how Diggers got 5 weeks for that tackle' is about the most controversial statement.

And in a proper judiciary worthy of the name, there are, as you say, clear rules and sentencing guidelines for dealing with past offences and longevity or expunging periods to apply to the rolled-forward additional penalties for same.

As Ash has pointed out, Mr Heron fully complies with my notion above that the SAZAR 'system' is much like a kind of loosely controlled framework for a local headmaster to 'use his discretion'..and then you find Headmaster A gave a pupil a simple 10 whacks across the derriere for a petty theft, but Headmaster B added 5 more for past offences, added 2 as it was his wife's iPod, took 3 off for being in the cricket team, then added 4 more for 'deterrence' to the other pupils who've been playing up lately on a 'mid-range' scale of playing up. That is the SANZAR model, as so clearly revealed by Mr Heron's very personal assessment which clearly differs from the Officer of SANZAR that ruled on the Cheetahs' 2 week ban incident (a worse tackle).

Digby has priors on commenting on officials. Which is the big worry.

Also Cipriani was just a general "can't believe" but not actually saying SANZAR knows nothing about rugby. DC has an out, by saying he didn't know the full story or whatever.

Edit: though QC may have just taken the lead, calling it "massive bull droppings" (his censoring, not mine).

From my observations, if a player does not go into these hearings pleading guilty and are in fact found guilty, they are handed a even bigger punishment for not knowing their mistake. It seems that 99.9% are found guilty, so why would you not plead guilty. It gets them back on the field sooner.

This is bullshit.

Armbands are in order - covering the super 15 logo.

I know what your saying but maybe things are going to far. Not our decision to make but its pretty shit that these guys can put themselves above criticism by fining and/or suspending players in these situations. How boring do we want our sportsmen to be?

sounds innocuous but really how dumb are some players.. why even put yourself at risk like that, I'm sure they get drilled about social media on what you can and can't say

I thought Digby did the wrong thing and deserved 2-3 weeks. Yeah he had priors, but to stretch 4 seasons back to find them.? Thats kind of digging deep. I saw it as reckless, but not malicious. I realize the difference in the terms is very subjective though so have no problem discussing it further. If SANZAR was going to come down on it harder this round/season they usually say so. As most have said its a consistency issue.

Because if you don't use your voice, you will trodden on by "Big brother". Onya QC for saying what everyone is thinking.

Can agree completely with it deserving a sanction, but the inconsistency is sickening.

Another example: Warburton, world cup. Another much worse tackle. Suspension? Three weeks.

Even people quoting Ioane's priors from 4 years ago - a week got added for them. Just one week. That still leaves 7 (or 4) weeks left to puzzle out how they got awarded, when Warburton sees 3 weeks, and Strauss just 2 weeks.

The final nail in the coffin is the lack of professionalism and the amount of subjective analysis in Mike Heron's write up.

All of SANZAR judiciary should be objective, with clear gradings or ratings for each piece of foul play, with clear video examples of what each grading is. Each rating or grading should have a base penalty. Additions or subtractions should be well defined and obviously calculable.

Instead, as RedsHappy says, it's just like a headsmaster picking a punishment randomly based on what he feels like today. Completely subjective, which is so wrong.

What's even worse, is that the press release from Mike Heron just confirms what a shambles the whole process is. Sometimes, I am amazed SANZAR functions with the lack of professionalism they show in some of their operations.

Oh, and don't get me started on suspending for weeks instead of games. A player getting suspended in the last game of the year and not actually serving a suspension? Or skipping weeks for byes? Priceless.

I agree totally Cyclopath, but it is the inconsistancy that is getting up my nose in this case. This type of tackle should be taken out of the game, but is giving one player 2 weeks, the next player nothing, and then the next 5 weeks gong to achieve this? I would hazard a guess that it would be more effective if all players were given the same penality with adjustments for bad behaviour, i.e. start at the minum and then build. I also don't think that the judicry should lay to much weight on prior indiscretions from 4 (!!!!!) years ago. And yes I would say then same if it was any other player.

Having calmed a little from the inital reaction - yes perhaps 5 weeks is a suitable sanction. BUt that does not taken away from the fact that Strauss (?) only got 2 for something that could be deamed as worse.

Now calmed

Too much to read. But it doesn't look like anyone brought up Rory Sidey. He got three weeks last year for a tackle far worse than Digby's and wasn't even cited for a fairly equal tackle (not a spear but a lift) on Berrick Barnes.

Not that I am complaining. We play the Reds in 2 weeks.