Quote wrencat1873="wrencat1873"What you are inferring here, is that because those two got away with it, then deliberate foul play is ok !
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Why do you feel the need to defend the indefensible.
IMO there is no doubt about the intent, he should have received a longer ban.'"
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion
Someone said a player should be banned as long as a player is injured, I was pointing out 2 cases of serious foul play where bans were given, but no injury was received.
My question is, under this system they thought up where bans last as long as a player injury - would these types of foul be bannable?
Quote wrencat1873="kinleycat"I think he was implying that should a player receive an injury from a deliberate or reckless act, and not miss any games (eyes and ears or bad cut type injury's) the system would not (wrongly) be applied.
He was pointing out that that would be unfair, i think!!'"
That could also apply too.
The main problem with it is, when a bite/gouge etc cause no injury at all, will they not be banned for it? When just about everyone knows biting or gouging should be bannable offences in any sport.