IRB overreaction to minor indiscretions is ludicrous
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.
Recommend this story.
Bundy Think Tank.
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- bloodgate, dean richards, Harlequins, International Rugby, Rugby Union


August 28th 2009 @ 8:10am
arbitro storico said | August 28th 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
Playing to the gallery, Chris? How very unlike you! Nothing more certain to get the Roarers going than a whiff of anarchy.
Society’s control mechanisms are at their best when they acknowledge light and shade rather than only black and white. Just because your examples don’t rank with drug or referee abuse doesn’t mean that they should be regarded as inconsequential.
August 28th 2009 @ 8:14am
anopinion said | August 28th 2009 @ 8:14am | Report comment
I remember in Queensland the numerous punch ups that occurred in each game. Then the QRU installed the rule “throw a punch, whether it hits it target or not and you shall be sent from the field”. A few send offs occurred and then no more fights. One rule of zero tolerance cleaned up local footy. Zero tolerance for acts of violence and for planned and instigated cheating by clubs is the only approach sensibly minded individuals could support. The South African protest was so absurd I do not care what happened to them.
Mr Laidlaw, when you use the words “For throwing a few punches,” you make it sound harmless. It sounds very much like the moronic mumblings of the Thursday night RL tv show explaining why the knock out of Steve Price was ok. “It’s just footy”. It is not footy, it is violence. It is not ok. Violence is the tool of the ignorant, and the entertainment of those with minimal intellect.
I know a player that threw one punch and killed a man on a footy field. Many lives fell into a state of ruination because of this one act. Had the QRU had a zero tolerance policy in place before this incident, it may have been avoided.
Mr Laidlaw I implore you to retract your vile article at your earliest convenience.
August 28th 2009 @ 9:27am
Yikes said | August 28th 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Amen.
August 28th 2009 @ 8:40am
Mungehead said | August 28th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Right on Chris, let’s drop all those poncey rules and let the players do what they want. A name change would suit too, how about calling it “Ultimate Team Fighting”! And swap that wussy inflated ball for a real weapon, something with spikes on it. Or maybe an Uzi.
August 28th 2009 @ 8:43am
Ralph said | August 28th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Excellent and thought provoking.
Wonderful to see someone champion balance and proportion.
I’m tired of the the self righteous and self important who have nothing better to do than spend their time, and other peoples money, passing trite judgements on others.
August 28th 2009 @ 8:50am
Brett McKay said | August 28th 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Chris, if I understand the Auckland schoolboys’ brawl situation correctly, the Kelston boys received suspensions numbered in the months, but the Grammar boys’ suspensions were measured in weeks. If on- and off-field violence at schoolboy level is viewed so dimly (and well it should), why wasn’t there some semblance of parity in the suspensions??
As for the Harlequins suspensions, and the penalties handed out to the Springboks and SARU, even if the IRB have been hamfisted to the extreme, surely they had a legitmate case to stamp this deceptive and childish (respectively) behaviours out of rugby??
August 28th 2009 @ 8:56am
stillmissit said | August 28th 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Some of you guys! Well I start to wonder how much rugby you have played.
Chris has laid out a perfectly reasonable statement about punishment and crime in terms of our world of rugby but no, some of you want zero tolerance. I am amazed, I thought most of the roarers were reasonable people. Is this our anti convict heritage coming out for an airing?
Players and coaches have done whatever they could get away with to win forever in this game. Look at our efforts under Eddie Jones and the famous if in doubt ‘face plant’, now that is dangerous, against the spirit of the game and therefore brings the game into disrepute but we have said nothing about it.
Before all you preachers get on your fake high horse lets get real around here.
My take on this as an ex ref is:
SA shouldn’t have worn arm bands it diminishes the respect for the black/death arm band. Slap on the wrist don’t do that again or we will come down on you heavily.
Blood incident – A significant fine and warning to all other coaches etc that this behaviour will not be tolerated. Maybe independent doctor to review injuries in major matches.
Every sensible rugby supporter nods and tut tut’s then moves on instead of seeing the end of the rugby world as we know it……
August 28th 2009 @ 11:01am
Greg Russell said | August 28th 2009 @ 11:01am | Report comment
“Slap on the wrist don’t do that again or we will come down on you heavily.”
My reading of Spiro’s article is that this is essentially what the IRB tried to impose:
“The IRB had argued to the committee hearing – Sir John Hansen (a former NZ high Court judge), John Eales, and Guillermo Tragant – the case that each Springboks player and the coaching staff should be fined 10,000 pounds, SARU up to 250,000 pounds, and that the players and the team’s management be suspended from the 2011 Rugby World Cup tournament (with the sanction to be suspended depending on good behaviour).”
I suspect that most readers of Spiro’s article missed that the really heavy part of the above was to be a SUSPENDED sentence, i.e., “don’t do that again or we will come down on you heavily.”
August 28th 2009 @ 4:33pm
Darryl SA said | August 28th 2009 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
Greg, I’m not sure if I’m understanding you correctly, but if you’re suggesting that the entire sanction was to be suspended then that is not correct. The fines were to be applied, but the barring from the World Cup was to be suspended depending on good behaviour. The committee felt that the fines too were rather steep (see p18 of the transcript).
August 28th 2009 @ 9:01am
Temba said | August 28th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Chris I think I like Spiro’s version better, he got everyones blood boiling a little bit more
far more sensible though.
August 28th 2009 @ 9:10am
QC said | August 28th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Brett,
The school boy incident goes much deeper than what some have been lead to believe. It emerged that they player who is deemed to have been the aggravating factor in the brawl was not handed any suspension as the board containing an Auckland Grammer students father deemed it ordinary rugby behaiviour while also admitting it may have helped start the melee.
There has also been claims of racism towards Kelston Boys a west Auckland middle to lower socio economic school, where as Auckland Grammer is situated in the heart of one of Aucklands most exclusive suburbs, while I may not necessarily agree with the racism tone as a large majority of the Grammer team comes from outside of the school zone i.e the poorer suburbs namely south Auckland and are generally of Maori or Pacific Island decent.
The suspensions have caused huge debate in NZ due to the somewhat lenient suspensions given to AG whilst the huge suspensions handed to KB players. The longest ban is 17 months for KB whilst the longest ban for AG was a mere 6 weeks.
We have not seen the last of this saga yet as Kelston Boys High School has stumped up with the $1500 per player to appeal their ludicrously long suspensions.
I guess some would say karma is a great sorter of injustices and bringing the universe in line.
Auckland Grammer went on to the Prestiges schoolboys Grand Final and were soundly whipped 45-11 (sorry I’m trying to recall the score off the top of my head)
August 28th 2009 @ 11:22am
Brett McKay said | August 28th 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
QC, thanks for this – I’ve noted Sam T’s response below too. I’ve got a few questions back for both of you…
August 28th 2009 @ 9:15am
Hammer said | August 28th 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
The Richards episode on the face of it is heavy handed – and if he and the club had come out straight away then the penalty may well of been a fine for the staff involved and a European ban for the club .. however the cover up took it into the realms of something far more sinister – and on the that basis I believe the punishments handed out fit the crime …
As for the brawl – well the penalties there certainly needed to be uniform across the schools and the schools themselves also needed to act … from what I’ve read only Kelston have disciplined their students – beyond the bans handed down …
August 28th 2009 @ 9:21am
Chris said | August 28th 2009 @ 9:21am | Report comment
I am reminded of a story I once heard regarding the effectiveness of punishment.
In Victorian England pick pocketing was a potential capital offence and execution were held in public. What on fact happened was that pickpockets would opperate at these public execution because the risk of being caught was so slim.
Now I have no idea whether the story is true, but it does illustrate that consistency of punishment is much better deterant than severity.
I think rugby is currently suffering from a lack of consistency and they are trying to compensate through severity and personally I don’t think that is going to be successful in cleaning up rugby in the long term.