0
Couldn't agree more GIGS and to be honest, I'm pretty sure that Mitchell and even Robbie Deans think the same way. I watched an interview with Mitchell the other day and it seemed pretty clear to me that even though he was annoyed that Haig can't play for 6-12 weeks, he was more annoyed by the possibility that off-field behaviour could be allowed to affect who plays in the team and who doesn't. It seems to be that both players are at fault here. It was a drunken punch up between two mates (we think). In the real world no one would care beyond the pub. It would not effect the every day man from rocking up at his job the next day and letting bad blood pass under the bridge. But because the media are intent on turning this into a circus to push ratings, suddenly this incident permeates much further. It's stupid. So long as this doesn't affect the team as a whole and their ability play together why should it be prolonged? And further more, why should it affect either players contracts with the ARU?
I'm hoping that Robbie holds to his promise on picking a talented team. I get the feeling he may have a similar mindset to Mitchell where frankly his concern is the players ability on field and their dedication to their game. Unfortunately, Robbie's backing may not be enough to convince the ARU to extend Henners contract but seriously if they don't, I'd be throwing some big questions at their dealings with Tuqiri.
Legally you're right GIGS...we're covered. I think the show is more about proving to the media and critics that the ARU are not soft and will not tolerate this sort of behaviour. They have to at least make it look like they're doing something.
Anyway i'm with Burgs. Lets wait and see what Haig says. I think this was a far fairer fight than the media is painting.
As for the original question, I'd say it'd be pretty unfair to not let us replace the boys if they've been suspended....i'm not sure there is a precedent for it?