You’re really Bob Willis incognito aren’t you?

As I mentioned because there is so little rugger to write about about @ present.

I view the incident as a 2 way thing, but it’s more of a distraction than a crime punishable by death whom some seem to see it.

Hooper’s been dealt with & Sanchez gets off (as per Hartley v Coles last yr @ HQ). In light of that, I don’t deem it an incident to dwell on.

Regds the ‘dancing on JPR’s face’, well no none can condone that, even though rucking, raking, punching & the kicking grounded players was seen more as part of the game then.

All countries have their dark incidents, like Johnno’s breaking Duncan McCrae’s ribs by sliding into that grounded player.

I guess Wales have had the odd bad boy incident too, although I’d have to look these up to be frank… but that’s not really the point.

However, times have moved on with, e.g, no rucks @ all now & with a million TV’s watching, foul play is on the wane.

BTW, I thought it was a sandwich short of a picnic, rather than ‘… a boiled egg short of a picnic’. Still I live & learn. Well, sometimes.

Regds.

It is a total over-reaction on Hooper’s part and so SANZAR have closed ranks and decided to make sure a Aussie star get his RWC. Hell even the RFU (not my favourite organisation) had the decency to ban ‘Dull Boy’ Dylan….. again.

SANZAR would clearly rather see Hooper playing in the RWC than not.

As far as Meads et al, I am also old enough to remember the ABs dancing on JPR’s face in a club game v Bridgend in 1978 and anyone who says that was or ever should be part of the ‘physical element of the game’ is a boiled egg short of a picnic.

Sanchez, on the other hand, should have received the maximum ban possible for “simulation”, which in my fantasy world is sanctioned with an eight-weeks ban and being forced to play your next match with your willy hanging out.

And it does actually, ‘in some way punishe Hooper for his actions’, by a wk.

This is an absurdly short ban that in no way punishes Hooper for his actions

Surely justice should be done. Surely It wasn’t. In light of the adjudicator’s ruling that ‘Sanchez holding Hooper was “deliberate, illegal and an act of considerable provocation”’, so logically & in the interests of ‘common justice’, Sanchez too should have been sanctioned. After all (as already mentioned elsewhere), without his action, there would have been no reaction.

It’s an anomaly & a failing of the system not to punish both provocateur & retaliator.

Perhaps the ‘sentence’ was lenient, thus reflecting Sanchez’s provocation? And it was only a slap. In Old Testament terms, was it even ‘an eye for an eye’?

Some yrs ago now, Colin Meads broke Norman Gale’s jaw for holding his jersey. Nought came of the incident. Pretty rough ‘justice’ & I don’t condone that act, but Gale didn’t illegally pull any more jerseys for awhile, that’s for sure.

Times have changed it seems.