Duplicitous disciplinaries

The irony of the Sharks going up against the Brumbies just a few days after two separate disciplinary hearings thousands of kilometres apart once again drew attention to the ridiculous inconsistencies in rugby’s judicial process.

On the one hand you had the Sharks (some would say predictably) having to make do without their captain A.J. Venter after he incurred a suspension of four weeks for his crude head-butt on Robbie Fleck in the Sharks’ match against the Stormers.

On the other, you had the Brumbies being able to pick their tighthead prop Ben Darwin in spite of the fact that he had attracted two yellow cards, which equal a red, and which caused him to be sent off the field in the Brumbies’ match against the Reds.

A judicial committee in Pretoria decided to punish Venter with a period out of the game (remember in the professional era it is also meant to cost him dear in the pocket) and even came up with the rather inverted piece of logic that the fact that he was his team’s captain had resulted in some leniency.

One would have thought that his accountability as captain might have aggravated Venter’s situation but the fact remains he was banned.

Interestingly the law book contains no list of recommended penalties for certain offences and neither does the section on rules and regulations on the IRB’s website, but during the 1999 Rugby World Cup the tournament media guide stated that the sanction “for head butting will not normally be less than” 60 days.

Venter can therefore consider himself rather lucky to have been suspended for only 28 days.

But what of Darwin? He was yellow-carded in the eighth minute when he and fellow Wallaby prop Nick Stiles exchanged punches (so they do it too!) and then again in the 52nd minute for elbowing an opponent in a melee.

Two yellow cards means automatic dismissal and a compulsory appearance before a judicial hearing. This was done in Brisbane on the Sunday after the game and the Australian tribunal ruled that the second incident was not severe enough to warrant suspension and the penalty of missing the last 34 minutes of the match was seen as sufficient punishment.

Although Darwin now has the shadow of those two yellow cards hanging over him he basically got off scot-free while Venter, whom I have no desire to defend, is out of the game for four weeks… he is penalised and his team is penalised while the Brumbies have no such handicap.

Surely there’s something wrong here? Early in the game between the Waratahs and the Blues, New South Wales prop Matt Dunning was caught on camera punching one of the Auckland props. Not only did the Aussie commentators pooh-pooh the incident as rugby-speak for greeting each other (wonder how they would have reacted if one of ours had landed a bunch of fives on Dunning?) but there was no citing.

Later Dunning lurched about comically, which seems to indicate that some old fashioned justice was meted out by the Aucklanders, but my question is this? If punching is not allowed – it isn’t according to the Law Book – then Dunning should have been cited. Just like with a high tackle severity or intent is not at issue.

Equally how come Venter was not sent off immediately for his horrible assault on Fleck? The referee in fact was heard to say that he had seen the incident. Then too, how come he was not cited?

Stormers coach Gert Smal had to ask the citing officer to take another look at the tape and suggest that further action might be appropriate, when most rugby fans who have the good of the game at heart were outraged by Venter’s thuggish behaviour. This raises another question: If the citing officer is not prepared to take action what is the purpose of having him present?

One just cannot escape the impression that there are double standards at work… for instance that other net of intrigue in which the Sharks have become entrapped - the use of banned substances. Herkie Kruger has tested positive for one of the no-no’s and the Sharks have named him and suspended him. If other cases are anything to go by he is going to have quite a job proving his innocence.

Now juxtapose this with Queensland and the ARU’s handling of the Ben Tune episode… as I said; something’s just not right here.