Rep bans should be served in rep games
Steve Matai clocks Mark Gasnier with a vicious right forearm, putting the Kangaroos centre to sleep. The punishment? Two matches.
Not just any two matches, mind you.
Two matches in next season’s trials.
Two less trips out to the sticks.
Two less chances to get injured.
Such a masqueraded punishment hasn’t been seen since Tony Greig’s ‘Do you think she’s blown flown in?’ jibe resulted in a ban from October’s banal domestic one-dayers.
Suspension? More like a holiday.
The system needs work. Matai has proven himself to be a dirty player. Nothing less. His nickname of ‘Angry Ant’ is kind. However, Matai’s abysmal record in club football counted for nought today. Different panel. Different rules. The Kiwi centre lined up Gasnier, propped, then raised his arm beyond a horizontal level to get to the tall opponent.
This was no accident.
Weak punishment aside, it raises the omnipresent issue of suspensions in rep football. Usually the argument is inverted. A player falls foul in a club game, thus risking an Origin or Test. The dispute is moot. If the player didn’t do anything wrong, he wouldn’t be at risk. However turn it around and it is not so lucid.
Matai should be unavailable for New Zealand’s next two tests. That would be a worthy outcome. Matai might not have been picked for the Kiwis anyway, I hear you say? Sure, that’s the risk. However it has to be better than missing nothing games in February.
An Origin player who is under the gun because of a grade one careless high tackle in a club game should serve any ban in club football. It makes sense.
The issue of finals football? Tough call. But let’s do the easy thing and separate the respective levels.
Subscribe to The Serve by Email
No comments yet.