Sorry, this story is unavailable
@DaveDiablo - Essentially he's got banned from a couple of club games that he never would have played anyhows. How does being found guilty but not punished equal proportional? If they'd found him not guilty, then that would have been different. Just added the bit about being a Chiefs fan, to try an avoid the typical "1eyedkiwi" BS made by a number of posters in PR. But yes, you're correct - it shouldn't and doesn't matter.
Posted 20:03 07th August 2012
@2eyedkiwi ...who you support doesn't affect the validity of your comment . But I think you're wrong all the same . The ban is proportional to the crime .
Posted 16:15 07th August 2012
Should be much more than that.
If Quade Cooper get's a one week ban for what he did.... i'm sorry but Tameifuna's was much worse. Should be at least 2 weeks
Posted 16:06 07th August 2012
What about giving him a gold medal for head chopping instead?
Posted 15:22 07th August 2012
Sharky... what more do you want? It was a high tackle that was missed, he would and should have been a yellow card if spotted by the officials. He got cited after the match and banned accordingly. It would not have made a blind bit of difference to the final result.
Posted 11:06 07th August 2012
Yet another example of how pathetic SANZAR is. Basically no punishment at all. What an embarrassment. (this from a Chiefs fan)
Posted 10:41 07th August 2012
As the article said, it means he'll miss 2 Hawke's Bay matches.
What is appalling from the citing committee's decision is the claim that it should have been a red card. No-one gets reds for tackles like that.
Posted 10:05 07th August 2012
And the point of this ban is what? A token punishment way after the crime was committed. In other words, not much of a punishment at all. Luckily he did not injure Kankowski.
What sanction/reprimand did the assembled match officials get for missing this?
Posted 09:44 07th August 2012