That's being a bit of a pendant don't you think? Same or very similar process.
Not at all. There is no such thing as a review committee. There is simply a Citing Commissioner. He has the sole say on whether a player is cited. However, because Mitchell received a red card, he cannot be cited (IRB Regulation 17.6.2)
When a Citing Commissioner is appointed, the following policy shall apply:
(b) Citing Commissioners may cite Players for an act or acts of Illegal and/or Foul Play even where such act or acts may have been detected by the referee and/or touch judge and which may have been the subject of action taken by the referee and/or touch judge. A Citing Commissioner may not, however, cite a Player for an act or acts of Illegal and/or Foul Play in respect of which the Player has been Ordered Off;
Effectively, the referee has cited the player by the act of giving him a red card. (I promise you that the amount paperwork the referee needs to do when he issues a red card is huge; much more that just a yellow.)
Regardless of all this, the Citing Commissioner may step in an decide that a red carded player does not need to front the judiciary. This has always been the case when the player's red card was NOT a result of an act of foul play, but of receiving a second yellow card for a technical infringement.
So you're saying on one hand he had to give it to be consistent, and on the other he wouldn't have if he had seen it. Can't have it both ways.
Not trying to have it both ways at all. Perhaps I can break it down for you
1. He yellow carded Franks for "no arms in the tackle"
2. Kaplan reported Mitchell for "no arms in the tackle". Joubert didn't see it, but equity demands that he also issues a yellow card for that, based on what Kaplan told him.
However, IMO, had Joubert actually seen it for himself, he may not have thought it was worth a yellow, so he may have given just a penalty.
)
