No logic in excluding Luke from test match
The NRL needs to add a rocket scientist to their communications team. Or maybe a brain surgeon. Possibly minds of that intellect could explain the logic behind Issac Luke now being unavailable for the Kiwis against Australia — because no one else can.
It’s a crazy scenario. New Zealand’s most important player is out of their most important match of the year for offences committed playing for Souths.
Luke needed to be punished, though the role of Ben Te’o in the tackle can’t be underestimated. As former Kiwis fullback Richie Barnett pointed out Luke was in control of the situation until the momentum of the tackle changed as Te’o made contact.
But why can’t Luke serve the rest of his ban during the next NRL season? Why does the NRL have jurisdiction over test matches?
Suspensions earned in club matches should not be carried into the international arena, especially as the tests are so scarce.
Sure, this is not new. For a while, it seemed before every test many of the best Kiwis were suspended. Remember Quentin Pongia, Stephen Kearney, Jarrod McCracken, Nigel Vagana, Ali Lauitiiti, Nathan Cayless, Steve Matai, Ruben Wiki . . .
The NRL showed its colours early on, setting an ugly precedent in its first year of existence, 1998. Kearney was suspended for three weeks after a fairly tame striking charge was judged a grade three offence and missed the subsequent Kiwis match.
The same weekend, Paul Harragon all but took off the heads of two opponents with reckless high tackles. He looked to be facing a potential six-week ban. But a “late change to a touch judge’s report” and additional video footage — that is not made public — leads to a one-week ban and Harragon being able to play the Anzac test a fortnight later.
It’s also hard to forget Gorden Tallis being involved in a brutal tackle and escaping suspension on the eve of a Kangaroos match.
Luke was also affected in 2009. The Kiwis hooker was involved in a minor incident against the Titans which was neither penalised nor put on report. However, the match review committee decided almost 48 hours after the game that Luke, who was the ball carrier, had raised his forearm and would be charged. This was four days before the Anzac test and Luke was suspended.
Naively, it was thought those days were gone and that the NRL had matured. There is no upside to Luke missing the Brisbane game on October 25. The NRL say they want to encourage the international game. So why would one of the best and most influential players be excluded when it is unnecessary?