IRB overreaction to minor indiscretions is ludicrous
Roar Rookie
By Chris Laidlaw, 28 Aug 2009 Chris Laidlaw is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- bloodgate, dean richards, Harlequins, International Rugby, Rugby Union
Related coverage
South Africa's Schalk Burger, center, is sin-binned during their international rugby union match against the British Lions at Loftus Versfeld stadium, Pretoria, South Africa, Saturday, June 27, 2009. AP Photo/Paul Thomas
Rugby seems to be hell bent on proving it’s the most disciplined sport on earth. Every time a breach of its increasingly protestant code of conduct occurs, the full wrath of the system is inflicted on the guilty.
In our part of the world, the unbelievably severe punishments dished out to some of the more volatile members of the Kelston first XV raised many eyebrows.
For throwing a few punches, not least at some of the more ill-mannered members of the watching crowd, these boys have had the book thrown at them. The chances are they will be lost to rugby and thus available for mischief elsewhere.
As a result, they lose and so does the game.
But that doesn’t seem to have occurred to those who sat in summary judgement. Then there has been the exotic case of the false blood used to remove English player Tom Williams from the field in a 2009 Heineken Cup match.
This, too, was one which deserved some measure of punishment, but those involved, notably Harlequins Director of Rugby Dean Richards, have also had the book thrown at them. Richards, who readily confessed, should have been appropriately fined and left to get on with his career.
Instead, he was effectively drummed out of the game, being banned, worldwide, for three years and more or less unemployable thereafter.
This was a relatively minor offence.
Dodgy substitutions have become part of rugby’s sub-culture. There was an almost theatrically amusing side to the use of false blood to get a goalkicker on to the field and it should have been treated accordingly.
Instead, in weighed the Rugby Football Union and the IRB sanctimoniously shouting zero tolerance. This came hard on the heels of the now famous Springbok protest at the punishment of Bakkies Botha.
The hamfisted way the South Africans went about their protest deserved a solid slap but the lengths to which the game’s bosses went to exert their authority over the SARU were mindboggling.
The IRB cranked up a full head of judicial steam over this one. The South African Rugby Union was formally served notice of “disciplinary proceedings.”
The matter was referred to the independent Judicial Panel Chairman who duly appointed not just one Judicial Officer but a whole committee assembled from various parts of the world, no doubt at ruinous expense.
These inquisitors duly found the South Africans guilty, dished out monetary fines to anyone and everyone connected with the incident and issued a statement ringing with sanctimony.
It was a demonstration of a game that has begun to take itself much too seriously. Does a rather lame protest like this really bring the whole game of rugby into disrepute?
Surely, by way of contrast, rugby’s cosy relationship with the liquor industry would invoke rather more disrepute than that.
The case for scaling back the punitive approach of the IRB is now becoming urgent. There are circumstances, certainly, in which severe punishments are warranted such as assaults on referees or proven drug abuse.
But to try and make an example of every indiscretion is ludicrous.
Rugby is a game born of indiscretions. If William Webb Ellis had done what he did in full view of today’s IRB, he would have been accused of bringing the game into disrepute.
Ponder that.
Chris Laidlaw is an ex All Black and occasional columnist for The Roar.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (28)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- bloodgate, dean richards, Harlequins, International Rugby, Rugby Union
Billo said | August 28th 2009 @ 3:48am | Report comment
Chris, as someone who regularly watches Harlequins, and has set next to Dean Richards at a charity dinner and thoroughly enjoyed his company, I couldn’t agree more.
In many respects rugby is a game for people who have the larrikin in them.
To ban someone from earning a living for three years for doing something that had no lasting ramifications simply invites the sort of sanctimonious articles we have seen in from various sections of the English media.
Nobody could condone what he did, but the punishment has to fit the crime.
The replacement laws in rugby almost invited the sort of infringement that Richards indulged in.
The rugby authorities should stop trying to be holier than thou all the time. If only Saints are allowed to play the game, then it will contract very quickly.
JJ said | August 28th 2009 @ 5:29am | Report comment
Wow…what a great article…couldn’t agree more. Saddest thing is that there is absoutley no consistancy in the sanctions that are applied on and off the field.
Who Needs Melon said | August 28th 2009 @ 5:52am | Report comment
Yes – great article – and a nice counter-argument to those that have said some got off lightly recently.
You can argue the rights or wrongs of individual incidents but, listing them out as you have, you realise that if the IRB is not careful it may be heading towards a death by a thousand (self inflicted) cuts.
And you’re right that rugby has traditionally had a ‘larrikin’ aspect and that many are taking things WAY too seriously.
Darryl SA said | August 28th 2009 @ 6:31am | Report comment
Exactly. Thank you. South Africa were hamfisted about their response indeed, but suggesting they should be banned from the World Cup was ludicrous, and suggesting they were lucky to escape justice even more so.
Dingbat said | August 28th 2009 @ 6:47am | Report comment
Chris take Spiro out for an ale or two and talk some sense into him please. The nutty fella’s brain is orbiting the planet. He needs to be brought back down to earth. It’s going to take one helluva effort, but based on your sensible article you could be the man for the job.
Sam Taulelei said | August 28th 2009 @ 6:51am | Report comment
It’s so cliched when sporting administrators hide behind the much quoted defence “bringing the game into disrepute” and then fail to explain or clearly define exactly how that has occurred. The IRB and NZRU by their actions could apply that loose defence to any transgression that occurs on the field as well as off as well as to themselves for some of their own decisions. For SA’s action, was it against the spirit of the game? and did it damage the integrity of the game. I would argue on both cases no but in these politically correct times I guess I’m in the minority. The Bloodgate affair is against the spirit of the game but I doubt that it’s damaged rugby’s integrity apart from the individuals and the club itself at the centre of the scandal. Thanks for the article Chris.
Skip said | August 28th 2009 @ 7:13am | Report comment
Great Article Chris.
What I find Ironic is that the RFU and IRB comming down so heavily on Harlequins for faking an injury to get an advantage. Every weekend we see Props clutching a saw ankles so the team can get a break before the next scrum or palyers throwing arms in the air and flying backwards like they have been hit by a toahawk missile to try and milk a penalty either kicking or cahsing a kick.
Ziggy said | August 28th 2009 @ 7:25am | Report comment
At last some sense from someone who has been there, done that. Now can we get Spiro to write out this article a 100 times as penance?
Yikes said | August 28th 2009 @ 7:40am | Report comment
This is possibly the most reprehensible article I have ever seen on the Roar.
When kids start throwing punches, they SHOULD have the book thrown at them.
When professional coaches CHEAT, they SHOULD have the book thrown at them.
When players make a ludicrous inappropriate public protests, they SHOULD have the book thrown at them.
When people who should know better write mindless articles conflating a larrikin streak with the above kinds of wrongdoing, they SHOULD be told they are a disgrace.
(PS. As anyone who knows anything will tell you, William Webb Ellis is a myth).
stillmissit said | August 28th 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Are you a cop by any chance?
Yikes said | August 28th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
No – but the issue here is not the cop, but the judge.
Who Needs Melon said | August 28th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Yikes,
I’m sure Chris can defend himself but in response to your comment about this being “the most reprehensible article” you have ever seen on the Roar, please consider that Chris wrote that “there are circumstances, certainly, in which severe punishments are warranted”. All he seems to be asking is for the IRB to consider “scaling back the punitive approach”.
Personally I think perhaps sometimes warnings and punishments involving charity work of some kind might go down a bit better all around.
Yikes said | August 28th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
And I think that there are few things worse in rugby than a club intentionally cheating. What scenarios exactly does Chris think warrant severe punishments?
Scale back the punitive approach, eh? To what? A slap on the wrist? That’ll show ‘em.
Campbell Watts said | August 28th 2009 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Um … read the article properly Yikes.
“There are circumstances, certainly, in which severe punishments are warranted such as assaults on referees or proven drug abuse.”
Sounds like a few depth breaths are needed on your part!
Yikes said | August 28th 2009 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
Campbell, I did read the article. I am arguing Mr Laidlaw puts the bar too high for what deserves sanction. Referee assault and drug abuse are so obviously cases that deserve severe punishment that the writer doesn’t earn brownie points for raising them.
stillmissit said | August 28th 2009 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
So let me get this straight Yikes.
You agree that 2 years for snorting cocaine a la Sailor is fair, as is 3 years for a coaches deception likely to give the club an unfair advantage?
Yikes said | August 28th 2009 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
Well, firstly, I assumed the drug abuse reference was to performance enhancing, as opposed to recreational drug use. I think the former is worse than the latter and should carry harsher penalties.
Secondly, my understanding was that this was a deliberate tactic, sanctioned by the coach, and not the first time the club had used the deception. To my mind, deliberate, cold, calculating, cheating is less justifiable than some forms of foul play committed in the heat of the moment. If 3 years ban is too harsh, and it may be, a year’s probably would not have been.
My response is to the article which suggested he should have been “appropriately fined and left to get on with his career”.
Hoy said | August 28th 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
I think the fake blood was a lot worse than the armband protest. Perhaps back in the day when it was park footy, it was funny, but now, with the professional age, a win in that game would have put the ‘Quins in the semi finals, and if they won that, the finals etc. Worth a bit of money that.
Yes games have long been affected by cheating on the field, but noone can argue that this wasn’t above and beyond the odd offside, or hand in the ruck to slow the ball down.
When it is subbies it is always funny (for the team doing it), but there is absolutely no place for organised cheating in the professional game.