IRB overreaction to minor indiscretions is ludicrous

Good atmosphere at the Stoop and alot of encouragement for the Quins. In the Telegraph "The ploy occurs at international level and is at least 10 years old. Tana Umaga, the former All Black captain, referred to such an incident during the 1999 Rugby World Cup in his autobiography Up Close. “In the third place play-off game against the Springboks in Cardiff I was pulled off at half-time which I saw as a sign I’d lost the coaches’ confidence,” Umaga wrote. “John Mayhew, the team doctor, wanted to cut me around the eye so, technically, it would be a blood bin. I wanted to know what was wrong with the old ‘blood on the towel’ trick, but he said the officials would need to see a cut.” The New Zealanders claim that they copied the scam off the Australians" Is this true?

I'd definitely have to cop that suspension. No excuses from me.

'This is possibly the most reprehensible article I have ever seen on the Roar' Precisely the sort of proportion-free, over-the-top, reactive, hanging judge, straight to fifth gear mindset that Mr Laidlaw's sensible article criticises.

If the cap fits ie idiots, then the IRB should wear it. they are trying, but are failing the game with their inconsistencies

Ian. Have read it. A well written statement, and has a general ring of truth to it. It is why I asked for my original post to be removed, and I see now that it has. I see that Jillings acknowledges that his offer of compensation, in close proximity to the discussion about limited disclosure, could easily be miscontrued as a bribe or reward for silence - and his statement indicates that he thinks that is what Tom Williams believed. Williams' statement to the ERC seems to reflect this as well. Jillings point about making clear to Williams that he, Williams, had lied and cheated, is also well made. Williams attempted in his full statement to the ERC that he was somehow an unwitting victim to events. Ultimately, we are all masters of our own destiny, and Williams is no exception. I remain slightly puzzled about the role of Mark Evans in all of this. If I recall correctly, Williams' ERC statement indicated that Evans had a separate conversation with him prior to Jillings, during which he claims Evans put pressure on him to limit his evidence. Jillings appears to be paying the price on his own. An honourable man, it would appear, who, maybe, has been let down by others.

Pothale If you have time you should read the full statement from Jillings not rely upon part truths. Jillings is an honourable man and has done an excellent job for Quins over the last decade. I am sad to see him resign. http://www.union.quins.co.uk/news/10181.php Today I shall be at Quins for a pre-season friendly and it will be interesting to test the water.

Since 1992 (when they returned from exile) I have had nothing but the most profound respect for the way in which the Springbok teams - and RS10, 12 and then 14 teams from the Republic - have carried themselves on and off the field. I have seen at the closest quarters - on the field, in hotels, functions, ceremonies and in other public and private contexts - the gentle and the fierce, and all shades in between, and rarely have any of the players got it wrong. How they continue to maintain this admirable balance surrounded by the lunatic rugby public of South Africa, as exemplified by many of the correspondents on this site is beyond me. The Bokke take it on the chin when they are caught out - my advice, gentle SA supporter, is to do the same. The "referee" has made the decision - move on.

Thanks Pothale, and what an amazing and sad saga for such an old and famous club.Dean Richards was one of the best and toughest No 8's the English have produced for many years. Is Jillings telling the whole truth I wonder? Initially it was all Williams fault, now it seems it's all Dean Richards. A classic example of Walter Scott's wonderful dictum: "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive."

How is that a double standard? Is the IRB in the business of promoting breast cancer?

The point is Greg that the man had already been punished in the Super 14 for blowing a kiss at Waugh with a two weeks suspension. In the dame match O'Driscoll ran into Rossouw without using his arms and concussed him severely, Sheridan threw a punch to Bekker's groin area, yet Botha once again got cited for doing exactly what everybody else is doing at ruck time(I mean this isn't even considered dirty play). He then cops a two week ban, for God only knows what. The panel concede the validity of his arguments regarding acceptable behaviout at ruck time, but still upholds the ban. If you are judge jury and executioner, isn't that tiranny? Don't I have the right then to feel aggreived? And if I do feel aggreived but have no recourse, how should I and to who should I make my petition?

Yikes, "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." There is no such thing as recreational drugs. Performance enhancing or Illicit they ruin lives. One is not better than the other or not as bad.

Let's get some proper perspective on what the IRB is doing people: They talk about a million dollar fine. In a matter of civil law, what would warrant a million dollar claim? The opponent woul've needed to prove damages of a million dollars not so? How much damage did the IRB suffer by the armband protest (and I do not mean the self inflicted cost of management idiocy damages)? In a criminal matter what type of criminal offence would warrant a million dollar fine? can you start to see the level of madness we are discussing here. And now you go talk about the cost to a union, national media, sponsors etc. in case a world cup is missed. Or the damage to the host nation in terms of missing visitors etc. We are talking tens of millions of dollars. For wearing armbands. Whatever you say about the armbands, the real issue is not that. The real issue is that the IRB has proven unequvocally by their reaction that the Springboks made a very pertinent point. These people have nograsp or even concept of justice.

What did they think would happen? Focus on the IRB incompetence. Did it or not?

If something is clearly unjust and the powers that control it are not willing to acknowledge or change that, then this is the logical outcomer. Read a bit of History. That is how most changes for the better come about. Thel ack of protest in the UK is unbelievable and they, not the complaining Aussies, were the team involved. That tells you a little about perspective,guilt and the IRB - does it not? Get some perspective - and don't fall into the trap of trying to rationalise clear bias and injustice on the old 'I was only following orders' principle'. Because that, in the end, is what you are saying. The IRB are the people bringing Rugby into disrepute by their maladministration.Not some childish protest. If the SARB decide to appeal, which I hope they don't, they will win because the IRB transgressed several legal procedures. Just another example of their admin incompetence.

You break the laws and you take your chances. It's hard to have any sympathy for any of the cases mentioned. Richards deserves 3 years just for being a moron. (Although maybe suspend a portion on the basis that at least his theatrics have brough some form of entertainment back to the game for those that Ditto the whole Boks team for their little hissy fit. What did they think was going to happen? The reason why, as OJ points out, that American leagues have harsh fines for public criticsm is that they know that private discussions are much better forums for raising and resolving issues. Chris, your implication that schoolboy rugby punchups shouldn't have the book thrown at them is incredibly irresponsible, and frankly you make no reasoned argument to support it other than trying to dismiss the incident as trivial. Trying to tie these incident back to "larrakin" origins of the game is pathetic.

I've gotta say that the fines are nothing compared to those the American leagues trot out every time a player or coach questions the officiating. They're usually 25k a pop.

Chris, I absolutely agree with your article on the sentiment that the officials are taking their punishments too far. Some of these guys are definitely excersizing their egos. Imagine a nation is banned from a world cup because it said it disagreed with the IRB. How childish can you get. This will really bring the game in disrepute, with sponsors, fans, media et al. I think when they discover that people are prepared to cheat because we want more options on the bench, they should change the rules on replacements to accomodate that. Look at soccer, where they can have many replacements, also NFL. Actually I had an email correspondence with Spiro recently where we discussed. I agree with Willem though that cheating should be in a much more serious category than an armband protest. And why not have freedom of expression. We live in a modern era. The guys are on the field, they are going to play, they just have something to say. Let them say it for Pete's sake. And if the Argentinians want to wear an armband saying they want into a four nations tournament. Lets love them for it. We saw the Boks had armbands on, we took notice that they simpathised with bakkies and still had their concerns over the citing system, and then we watched the game. There is something very wrong with a culture that says you stomp on the guy who disagrees. Did not western society evolve to the point where we pride ourselves on allowing freedom of expression. Why can the IRB operate a little feifdom where they are above all public criticism? I say the IRB needs a change of management personnel. The whole thing should be freshened up and modernised. It appears that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Temba i'd give them somethin minor. How to lose friends and alienate people?

Greg Russel - If a team decided to wear pink jersey's to create awareness to breast cancer. It's considered noble and just. If a team wears a couple of white armbands to create awareness to double standards within the IRB it's frouned upon. Proving more the double standards of the IRB. It's rediculous and annoying.

I was in the UK during the Harlequins saga and initially Dean Richards did not " readily confess". This is bulldust. Williams was the only person punished intially with a twelve months ban. There was an understandable outcry as if Williams had made the decision himself without the involvement of anyone else at the club?! Even then Richards only resigned when he realised the game was up ( excuse pun) and there was a further enquiry. In my view this was a case of deliberate cheating. Had Evans ( who replaced Williams ) kicked a drop goal then Harlequins would have made the final. The Leinster doctor Professor Tanner I think pursued Williams down the tunnel as he suspected something was up. He tried to obtain entrance into the Quins dressing room but was banned. I have no sympathy at all for Richards in this. He tried to abdicate any responsibility for the incident and let his player take a 12 month rap.Just appalling. How many other clubs have adopted this murky practice is not known, but this case should help to eliminate this blight from our game. Burger should have been banned for 12 months .