Sarfu must professionalise their disciplinary procedures

A bomb could be set to explode under South African rugby in the next few weeks which could once again place the SARFU disciplinary procedures, or lack thereof, firmly in the spotlight.

In an interview I did on radio with lawyer Brian Biebuyck, who has acted for both Stormers coach Alan Solomons and Springbok prop Cobus Visagie, he predicted that more players will in future be turning to the law courts to redress "injustices".

He said several players are in the process of taking legal action against one another. What really made me sit up and take notice was his admission that some high profile players were among them, including a top Stormer.

Client confidentiality is of course an important thing for a lawyer. I respect the fact that Biebuyck cannot furnish me with the name. But so far the digging that I have done has uncovered nothing, except to say that the player in question is unlikely to be the obvious.

De Wet Barry, who is now almost fully recovered after having his cheekbone fractured by an off-the-ball charge by Japie Mulder a few weeks ago, has put on record his opposition to the idea of tackling Mulder in a legal forum.

So who is it? What is the incident in question? The only thing we can say with any certainty at the moment is that Biebuyck is right in suggesting that legal men will become more involved in affairs which were once considered the domain of rugby men alone.

Even Mulder has shown this by threatening legal action against Solomons for his description of the Newlands incident as thuggery. I cannot recall a previous occasion when a player threatened to sue a coach, at least not in South African rugby.

But it is the onfield transgressions, particularly those that lead to injury, which could become problematic for SARFU if they do not bring their disciplinary procedures in line with the dramatic improvements made in other aspects of their administration.

There was an ugly reaction in some quarters to the outcry over the Barry injury. Many felt the Stormers were squealing. In what I can only term a bizarre twist, Stormers captain Corne Krige suddenly found himself in the dock instead of Mulder. This because Krige had dared to talk out about foul play and the neanderthal mentality that still seems to prevail in some sectors of our rugby.

Even in the Cape, which was where the radio programme was broadcast, I had several callers who took the view that the Barry injury, and how it was sustained, was "just part of rugby".

One, who claimed to have a legal background, threw out a Latin term which he felt absolved the perpetrator from blame on the basis that Barry, when he decided to play rugby, had to accept that there were risks involved.

I take that, just as every road user has to accept that there are risks involved in climbing into a car. But when it comes to the Barry case, the point is being missed. Turning to the road analogy again, we all accept the risks, but we also understand that if a drunk driver wipes us out by driving through a red robot, we will have recourse to the law courts, who will in turn impose some sanction upon him.

It will not cure our own injury, but it will act as a deterrant for other prospective drunk drivers. In serving his punishment, the culprit will also hopefully repent and resolve not to do it (drive drunk) again.

In an age where being forced out through injury impacts on a player's livelihood, incidents such as the Mulder/Barry one can no longer be swept under the carpet with a glib "That's rugby".

Steps have to be taken against the culprit in the hope that a long absence from the game will force him to think about his actions and hopefully repent. It is also necessary for the right message to be sent out to other players who have the potential to allow their aggression to cross the borderline between what is acceptable and what is not.

It is debatable that up to now SARFU have done that. I lost count of the number of people who told me on the day that the Mulder and Brent Moyle cases were being tried that SARFU would just give them a slap on the wrists.

As it turned out, they were right. Mulder's six week suspension (four of it suspended) was far less of a punishment than several officials were calling for given that he was a repeat offender. Then last week the suspended parts of both the Mulder and Moyle sentences were dropped because SANZAR regulations do not permit suspended sentences.

SARFU manager for rules and regulations, Christo Ferreira, has admitted that the disciplinary committee might have been harsher in their sentencing of both players had they known that they could not hand down suspended sentences.

Ferreira, to his credit, has owned up to the mistake and admitted that it was all a complete cock-up. A similar expression would be an apt description of the subsequent discovery that the intended three match banning of Moyle was effectively only two (as his act was committed on a Friday night, the three week ban came to an end in time for him to play on the third Saturday).

Biebuyck is one of several who believe this is typical of the amateurish way SARFU conduct their disciplinary hearings. In our interview, he described the system as "slapdash" and disorganised (he has defended Robbie Fleck at these hearings on occasion).

One of the big questions that was asked was why no-one ever asked the players who were the victims in the incidents to lead any evidence. In the Barry case, for instance, what Mulder said to him just minutes before the incident took place might certainly have been relevant.

According to Ferreira, allowance is made for players to give evidence. The prosecutors in each case are given licence to call the victim. But, says Ferreira, this never happens.

He believes this is because there is still an unwritten code among players that they do must not lay complaints against one another and must not be seen to be taking action themselves. Or maybe it is because once the heat of the incident has worn off, everyone just wants to get the hearing over with.

And in the Mulder and Moyle instance, the hearing into incidents which took place in Cape Town and Durban respectively was held in Pretoria. We do not need to go into detail about the logistical problems and costs involved.

But if SARFU wishes to be seen to be serious about their drive to clean up the game, they have to clean up their own act. In the age of professionalism it is no longer acceptable to approach these matters in an amatuerish fashion.

More and more lawyers are going to become involved in these hearings, and rightfully so. Unless SARFU wants to see the affairs of rugby become a matter for the law courts and not themselves, they must professionalise their act.