Reproaching the bench

There’s only one way out of the latest round of unsatisfactory rulings by rugby’s so-called judiciary – get rid of the lawyers.

The game’s disciplinary procedures have been allowed to metamorphose into a monstrous, self-serving bureaucracy totally at odds with the ethos of rugby.

And the greatest objection to these kangaroo courts (how apt is that expression after the latest round of hearings and verdicts!) is the inconsistency of the verdicts they pass down.

The latest discrepancies surrounding the John Smit vs Brad Thorn and Bismarck du Plessis vs Adam Thomson cases have upset South African fans and caused Sarfu president Oregan Hoskins to be unusually outspoken but they are symptomatic of a system gone wrong.

Some of the stuff that went on at last year’s Rugby World Cup (Schalk Burger/Francois Steyn) was farcical (to use a non-litigious word!) and there is no doubt that South African players down the years have been somewhat more harshly treated when it has come to citings and punishments.

The problem has been the advent of the lawyers, solicitors, barristers, advocates and QCs who have been allowed to take charge of the disciplinary process rather than allowing the game’s own structures to regulate the inevitable incidents that will occur in such an intense contact sport.

I have said it before (like so many other things in these columns!) so I’ll have to say it again. The only way to sort out the ambiguities is to have panels (very small ones) of respected former internationals to act as citing officers and to serve on tribunals.

Rugby players understand the stresses and strains of rugby and I have little doubt that if the like of Morne du Plessis, Willie John McBride, Andy Dalton, Nick Farr-Jones and Gareth Edwards were to sit in judgment of their modern-day fellows you would not have the discrepancies that see some get off scot-free and some suspended for various and sometimes illogical time spells.

A committee of players would recall previous meetings, previous decisions and hand down the same rulings – as opposed to the current situation where the judicial officer becomes bogged down trying to establish an intangible such as “intent.”

You certainly would not have the situation where Brad Thorn “appeared before SANZAR Judicial Officer Dennis Wheelahan QC after being cited by Citing Commissioner Tim Harland,” while Bismarck du Plessis “appeared before SANZAR Judicial Officer Kim Garling after being cited by Citing Commissioner Dick Byres.”

In a professional game there are obviously concerns about employment, remuneration and possible legal reprisals but surely this can be easily circumvented by having players sign a simple document agreeing to abide by the rules of the game?

But first M’Lud, I respectfully submit, we must get rid of the lawyers!