No issue with the RC at the time nor the 5 weeks when looked in isolation from other cases.
What I don't like, and think it's just plain stupid was 'The tackle was deemed to be a mid-range offence (8 weeks).An extra week was added as a deterrent '.
WTF? Why not just add the deterrent factor at the entry ranges to begin with? Gve me a break. That's almost as bad as the discounting because 'they turned up in a suit and tie and looked remotely sorry'.
Would agree with those sentiments. Either 8 weeks is sufficient as a deterrent for an offence at that entry level or it isn't. If the IRB believe that there is a need to add more weeks as a deterrent, then why is the entry level not 9 weeks or 10 weeks?
I would have thought that adding weeks to act as a deterrent would have been for someone who has previous form. Kirudrani had his 9 weeks reduced by 4 because of his previously clean record. It doesn't make sense to me.
When I saw it live, I was confident that he would be outed for more than just a couple of weeks and I don't have a problem with the final length of ban but the process of getting to that point seems a little strange IMO.