If the NRL is trying to make a point with their disciplinary action, they're going about it in the worst way possible. Without Johns demonstrating some contrition for his actions, his suspension isn't going to serve to dissuade children from viewing his swearing in a positive light. More, they've given every child in the country the opportunity to see Johns' behaviour and hear his words. They're making a martyr out of him.
For the rugby league playing child, whose perspective do you think it is easiest to empathise with? That of the player, allegedly robbed of a crucial game, or of the referee, who suffered the indignity of having two four letter words launched at him after making the call? Kids following the NRL aren't going to think 'if Johns was punished, obviously his actions were wrong' - they're going to think 'that bloody evil NRL is so unfair' and act accordingly. The NRL's response has been much worse for the game's image than the act could have ever been on its own.
Cram - I disagree. Maintaining that his swearing was not directed at the touchie was basically the only chance Johns had of avoiding being disciplined. As it stands, there are enough weak points in the judiciary's evidence for him to mount an effective challenge.
Wouldn't have it any other way ;-)
