When I got the news last night direct from the NRL that Issac Luke had been suspended for a week for a grade one striking charge I wasn't too surprised.

In fact if I'm honest I always knew there was no way he would get off the charge.

The Kiwis and Rabbitohs star could have had the Pope come in and testify for him and he wouldn't have got off.

I was resigned to the fact that the Kiwis would go in to the Anzac test missing their starting / first choice hooker.

I woke up this morning and heard the news leading the six o'clock Radio Sport news.

Again I wasn't too fussed.

Then I got to work, and so far I haven't been able to restrain my anger.

To use an Aussie phrase I'm absolutely filthy about it.

This is just atrocious.

While all Kiwis fans expected it - lets be fair more often than not the NRL judiciary gets to play a part in the Kiwis line-up before a test - I can not get over the fact that this particular case is nothing more than an ambush.

Let's look at the facts.

Four of the NRL's finest - the two refs and the two touchies - didn't see any problems with the alleged strike by Luke on Anthony Laffranchi.

The video ref didn't even raise it during the game.

If it was worthy of a trip to the judiciary do you not think the game day officials would have put Luke on report?

Do you not think there would have been a penalty given at the time as well?

Of course the answers are yes.

There is no question that Luke led with his forearm trying to fend Laffranchi off.

But even Laffranchi has come out and said he doesn't even recall being "hit".

Surely if the charge was warranted he would at least have some memory of it.

Also take in to account the fact that Laffranchi - according to the NRL handbook - weighs in at 100kg and is 185cm tall.

Luke on the other hand - again according to the NRL handbook - is a mere 84kg and gives away 11cm in height.

Again, let me reinforce the fact that I do think Luke led with his forearm while trying to fend Laffranchi.

And I do think it warranted a penalty.

But did it deserve a week suspension?

No - of course it didn't, well not in my mind anyway and I'd say most of you agree.

Again if we go back to facts, you have to also admit Luke's history with the judiciary didn't help his cause.

His previous record of offences meant he was pushing the proverbial uphill backwards with a rubber spade.

But I can't help but go back to the point that I made before that five NRL officials didn't seem to have any problem with what happened on the field!

Now there's the other fact that the judiciary has in previous weeks looked to have been rather leaniant towards Australian players.

Last week Paul Gallen was let off a grade one careless high tackle on Souths' Craig Wing.

Wing was forced from the field as a result and he did not return.

Gallen's history in front of the judicary is bad. Yet he managed to get off the charge and was free to play the following weekend and now of course will suit up for the Kangaroos against the Kiwis.

Of course there was a different panel of former players on the judiciary that cleared Gallen.

Luke faced up to a judiciary made up of hard-nosed players Ian Roberts, Bob Lindner and Mal Cochrane - all of whom I respect as players.

Which begs the question how can a judiciary be consistent when the members change out week-to-week?

And also how does a high shot that sends a player off the field injured compare with a fend that the opposition player doesn't even feel?

But if we put all this aside, do I still think the Kiwis can win on Friday night?

Of course I do.

Will this have caused a bit of irritation to the camp?

No doubt.

But can they put it behind them and do the job?

Damn right they can.

I'd love to know what you think about what happened and of course if you think the Kiwis can still get up.