https://www.rugby.com.au/news/wallab...eadbutt-202275Swain suspended for two weeks, but I find this statement interesting"The committee further determined that given the above off-field mitigating factors and that a three-week sanction would be wholly disproportionate given the level and nature of the offence, the sanction was further reduced by an extra week, resulting in a sanction to weeks*I'm really only concerned that the provocation was used to determine the initial level of sanction (6 weeks) then used as a mitigating factor in reducing the sanction by 50%, but then it appears that the panel had further discretion to apply it again to justify reducing the sanction by a further week, conveniently rubbing him out for the remainder of the England series and making him available for the first test of the rugby championship.I'm a bit confused why world rugby has a widely publicised series of sanctions if they can allow that to be applied (fairly reasonably imho) and then completely ignored if the panel think it's too harsh.It smacks of rugby's perennial self-interest problem. Either an England supportive panel have decided 2 weeks because they just wanted rid of him or an Aus supported panel knows they can't get him back for this series but want him for RC.It's likely not that, but the inexplicable reasoning behind the extra week leaves acres of room for accusations