Who governs the disciplinary committees?
James White takes a look at some discrepancies at recent disciplinary hearings and poses the big question: Who governs the consistency of the individuals on these disciplinary committees?
If you think professional rugby is all about boiled chicken and icy baths, read on! In his latest column for the Irish Times, Toulouse strongman Trevor Brennan tells of high jinx and low walls…
Coaches and fans alike are continually calling for consistency, not only from players but from officials who ensure the smooth and controlled running of the game. There are repercussions for both groups if a lack of consistency should occur, as players are dropped from sides and officials may be fined or suspended.
I would therefore like to ask who governs the consistency of the third group of individuals whose duty it is to ensure the efficient and effective running of the game, namely, the disciplinary committees.
In the Heineken Cup recently, a player found guilty of committing the offence of biting an opponent, was banned for 18 weeks. This translates into a four and a half month ban, which may seem fairly reasonable, until one takes note of the fact that the International Rugby Board's (IRB's) disciplinary regulations stipulate that the minimum ban for biting a player is six months.
These regulations state further that such a ban may extend to a maximum of thirty six months.
With such regulations in place one would think that it would be relatively easy for a disciplinary committee to adjudicate on such matters, but we need only look at past decisions on the issue of biting to see the inconsistent nature of these judicial panels.
The most famous example of biting is surely that of Johan le Roux, who was banned for nineteen months for biting All-Black captain Sean Fitzpatrick's ear in the second Test in Wellington in 1994. Continuing in the trend of South African vulgarity on the rugby field was Sharks flanker Wikus van Heerden, who was banned for 18 months for biting Richard Harry in a Super 12 match.
Castres back row forward Ismaela Lassissi was banned for 12 months after sinking his teeth into Munster prop Peter Clohessy in a Heineken Cup game in January 2002. Bath prop Kevin Yates received the same length of suspension for biting an opponent in a Premiership game against London Irish, while English lock Danny Grewcock received a mere two month suspension for biting the finger of New Zealand hooker Kevin Mealamu in the Lions series in June last year.
Forgive me if this sounds naïve, but are there varying degrees of biting?
One may argue that it depends where a player bites another player, or that it may depend on the damage sustained, but can such factors result in the ridiculous fluctuations in the lengths of bans administered by the disciplinary committees?
Are there no set standards or precedents in world rugby that must, under any circumstance, be adhered to?
Surely there are few issues more important then ensuring that individuals capable of such appalling behavior should not be allowed to participate in the game of rugby.
So I ask, shouldn't something be done to ensure greater consistency with regards to disciplining players who bring the game into disrepute?
Our faith in the IRB's disciplinary system is waning, along with the respect for those who reside over such matters. Regulations are there to be adhered to, but surely where a disciplinary committee requires disciplining, the structures put in place must be questioned, as well as the IRB's seriousness and competence to resolve these enormously important issues.
Do you agree/disagree with James?
