Thursday D-day for banned Tahs

It's not a conspiracy theory, it has been happening all year and it's not just in Australia. There are huge question marks over the professionalism of all the officials who seem to be bending to pressure coming from somewhere when it comes to "home advantage"

"Give Skelton a break " or should it be "give Whitelock a break" either way it is break the back baby...relating to shoulder charge...get it.

Terry the role of the citing commissioner is to cite players who commit acts of foul play that in his opinion warranted being sent from the field (red carded). Whether they were penalised, not penalised, or yellow carded is not relevant to the citing commissioner. The key words are “in his opinion". It can't be anything else other than his opinion. He makes a judgement on what he sees before him, just as you do. I understand your frustration but this is not an exact science. Any process however should strive for consistency and I think that is the issue you have. You said that there have been other incidents worse than Latu that have not been cited but you have not given examples. My opinion on the Latu/ Skelton tackle is that the actions of both players met the red card threshold. You and I have seen the same incident and have formed completely different opinions.

Definitely not flat. http://cdn1.rugbydump.com/posts/will-skelton-latu-tip.jpg

I reckon you should get those yellow eye patches off mate, ~ Skeletons not getting off anyway, he'll very likely get an increase!

Brett I am not buying into any currnt personal argument or penalties, right or wrong, My argument is all about the consistency of the citing process. In this situation, in my opinion, the process is inconsistent and the perception is one of vindictiveness. Please read my earlier comments and replies.

In my opinion it was red card .... but that is only my opinion .... and I can excuse the on-field officials for missing it .... but it was absolutely clear in replay which is why I was astounded that Kurindrani was not subsequently cited.

So Clarke in effect what you are saying is that the citing commissioner is in fact dissatisfied with how the on-field referee dealt with the situation. That is not the citing commissioner's role. My argument is that you cannot have it both ways. Many other players from all teams have done worse than what Latu did, been penalised and yellow carded and that is the end of it. That should have been the end of this incident also. Whitelock was not dumped on his head or neck, essentially he came down flat, but he was lifted by Latu and basically dropped, and it was after the whistle. I thought at the time penalty and yellow card, exactly as has happened many many times before this season .... with no subsequent citing. To be absolutely fair and uphold the integrity of the citing commissioner and citing system all other tackles that put a player in a dangerous position should also be cited .... of course the rules will not let this happen. If the citing commissioner followed precedent that he has set by not citing further what the on-field referee has already punished then he should have only cited Skelton for his part and I believe that Skelton would have got off because he did not lift. In his actions from this game, and his non action from previous games, the citing commissioner has now compromised himself, compromised the whole citing system and sapped everyone's confidence in the system.

there are 3 aussie teams with a large number of wallabies.

by your logic taylor Mccaw should be stood down next week by the crusaders for his ill discipline

Hume I seriously doubt you are an aussie or even a reds supporter.

I find such a convulated conspiracy theory hard to accept. As I said before in most lifting tackels, especially as benign as this one, only yellow cards are issued. That is the norm. Additionally in 2 man ones like steyn it is also common that only 1 gets carded. I think your disapointment with crusaders not making the finals is clouding your judgement. BTW Crusaders did do illegal things like shoulder Latu off the ball that deserved yellow cards and were not spotted. So we are talking about more than knock ons.

For someone with a paid job you sure as hell spend a hell of a lot of time on here. I hope you are self employed because you would surely be one of the least productive employees ever spending half your day here, regurgitating the same tired argument ad nauseum.

This would have to be the stupidest comment I have read on here in months *sigh*

It really is a shadow Wallabies team playing as the Waratahs isn't it. I sometimes wonder if this is a disadvantage to our hopes internationally? Yes other countries including the Kiwis seem to have more internationals in some teams than others, however we seem to put all our eggs into one or two baskets. The South Africans and New Zealanders seem to find the step up to international rugby easier as opposed to our lads at times who still seem to look like a SR team. 13 Wallabies that is massive.

I'm n two minds on this. I feel both should be suspended and rightfully so. In saying that I think Cheika is a smart cookie and hopefully by openly making noise about the incident and taking Skelton in spite of the ruling he is setting a precedent and as Shane has said backing is man. This move alone could potentially influence the panel. Has anyone stopped to think this could be exactly why they are appealing? Secondly Cheika knows if this appeal stands Skelton if pulled up again will be going for a even longer skate and imagine should he do something early in the world cup? Then to turn this 180 again, by doing so Cheika is admitting Skelton is key to the Tahs success and therefore the Wallabies, now the entire rugby world is aware of this and they will set about working defensive counters for him. It could be deemed as arrogance, inflammatory or a pure stroke of genius on Cheikas behalf

Wait and see what happens when the Tahs play my boys Kuruki, I think most Kiwis and Saffas will be spitting tacks, if the Tahs are relying on this game to finish outright 2nd best conference winner. I can just about guarantee that Graham will be instructed to rest key and fringe Wallabies from the Reds squad to ensure the Tahs take the spot. Well that is my conspiracy theory and I am sticking with it :-) Not that we will have many Wallabies this year IMO.

If you are looking for fairness & natural justice then looking at a sporting tribunal is probably the wrong place!

Yes Peter K. Interesting point. But it will never be admitted to. Echoes of Quade Hate 2011. Methinks they protesteth too much. Cutting OZ down to size is one nation's second favourite team sport.

Yes Peter I take your point however the concept of imposing an additional period as a deterrent is not new so there is no excuse for not being aware of it. Having said that the Judiciary may not necessarily impose an additional period. They would judge this on the basis of any aggravating factors. There may not be any. So I think what you are saying is there should be a definite period. It should not be left open. The need for a deterrent however may be not the only factor that might be taken into account when determining any additional period of suspension. So then you would need to have a definite period for every possible act of foul play and then the same for every other foreseeable aggravating factor. This would be needed to satisfy your idea that everyone should know the exact period in advance. A difficult process I would imagine. Far better to allow the Judiciary to operate within guidelines in my opinion. As an example any act of foul play can incur a suspension up to a maximum of 52 weeks. Let’s take the foul play act of a lifting tackle. The top end entry point is 12+ weeks. The Judiciary actually has the flexibility to impose an entry point anywhere between 12 and 52 weeks. The system is fair in my opinion.