Hows this for a protest...!

The IRB are again getting ahead of themselves in threatening to ban the Springboks from participating in the 2011 Rugby World Cup in New Zealand. They (the IRB) have found the Springboks guilty of bringing the ‘Game of Rugby into disrepute’ for staging  a protest wearing white armbands, reading ‘JUSTICE 4 ALL’. Lets pause right there…

As far as I’m concerned, the only people guilty of bringing the “Game of Rugby” into disrepute are the IRB themselves for not acting on the countless complaints to rectify the injustices of the so blatantly biased citing a judiciary systems. I’m beginning to sound like a stuck record, complaining about how the IRB’s citing process keeps FAIL-ing us.

Fines of £10,000 (ZAR127,000) on SARU, £1,000 (ZAR12,700) on Springbok skipper John Smit and £200 (ZAR2,500) on each of the other players were imposed by the independent committee, comprising of two judges, John Hansen of New Zealand and Guillermo Tragant of Argentina, and former Australian captain John Eales.

 The IRB went on to say:

“Whilst welcoming the guilty verdicts, the IRB is extremely disappointed at the level of sanctions imposed against the South African Rugby Union and its players in light of the clear findings that they have brought the Game of Rugby into disrepute and acted in a manner which is prejudicial to the best interests of the IRB and the Game of Rugby,”

They have threatened more severe punishments to be imposed on SARU and it’s players, threatening a possible 2011 RWC ban…

Let’s stop the bus right there. If the IRB think that they will ever get away with banning South Africa from the next Rugby World Cup, they are smoking their socks. South Africa are one of the biggest financial contributors to international rugby as far as ticket sales, TV rights and all that goes. We are the current Rugby World Cup and Super 14 champions. We won the Series between the B&I Lions. We whitewashed the All Blacks in South Africa. We are the current leaders on the international rankings, and have a good chance of winning this year’s Tri Nations series. In a nutshell, we are world beaters at the moment. No team will be true world champions unless the beat us at the next RWC in New Zealand, and to be honest, I don’t think any other major rugby playing nation will accept a ban being placed on us. The point of winning the Rugby World Cup is to test yourself against the best rugby nations on the planet and come out tops.

The IRB are meant to be a professional outfit, yet they shy away from criticism in every way. They wrap their referees in cotton wool so to speak, and fine anyone who criticises a referee’s performance. Now they make outrageous threats when they are criticised for not rectifying the obvious flaws in their own systems, after repeated complaints. If they want to the international rugby authority, they need to make sure they are up to the task.

Any other professional, either in their personal capacity, or within an organisation comes under scrutiny for their performance, or lack thereof. What makes the IRB think that they are above reproach?

If the IRB want to be the sole international rugby authority, they need to take responsibility for their shortcomings and rectify them, soon!

Read the full judgement here

The full IRB statement:

“The South African Rugby Union, members of the South Africa squad and team officials have been found guilty of acts of bringing the Game of Rugby into disrepute in breach of the IRB Regulations Relating to the Game.

“The ruling was issued today [Monday] by an Independent Disciplinary Committee chaired by the John Hansen (New Zealand), Guillermo Tragant (Argentina) and former Australian captain John Eales AM (Australia). The independence of the Committee is a feature of the IRB judicial system which is respected by the IRB and its constituent members.

“The action arises from the South Africa national team and management wearing armbands during the third Test against the British & Irish Lions on July 4 as a protest action following the upholding of Bakkies Botha’s two-week suspension by an independent Appeal Committee for dangerously charging into a ruck without binding onto a player.

“The guilty verdicts follow a misconduct hearing before the Independent Committee which was held in Dublin on August 10. During the hearing, the Committee heard submissions and evidence from SARU and members of the South Africa national team and team management (including John Smit and Peter de Villiers, the Springbok captain and coach respectively), before retiring to consider its verdict and sanction.

“While, for technical legal reasons, the Independent Committee dismissed the Misconduct charges under Regulation 17, the committee expressly found that on the merits of the case the actions of SARU, its players and team management ‘brought the game into disrepute, criticised the judicial process and was misconduct’. The Independent Committee separately noted ’such misconduct to be serious’ in nature and commented that ‘there has been no formal apology, acknowledgement, contrition or clarification from either the players or the SARU themselves’.

“The Independent Committee made it very clear in its ruling that ‘the playing arena is no place for protest’ and that the wearing of the armbands ’showed a serious lack of respect and consideration for their opponents’. It was clear that ‘If players choose to wear on their uniforms armbands or other emblems which bring the game into disrepute, then they have breached that Regulation [11]‘.

“The Independent Committee criticised SARU ‘because they allowed the Game and the IRB to be brought into disrepute by not only by failing to attempt to prevent this protest, but by approving of it and effectively consenting to [...] conduct which was prejudicial to the best interests of the IRB and of the Game’.

“The Independent Committee therefore imposed a fine of £10,000 (ZAR127,000) on SARU, £200 (ZAR2,500) against each of the other players who wore the protest armbands and £1,000 (ZAR12,700) against John Smit who the Committee determined as captain of the South Africa team has greater role model responsibilities.

“The Independent Committee was unanimous in its view that, had it not been for the legal technicalities (including the fact that the Committee felt it had to take a ‘necessarily strict interpretation’ of certain aspects of Regulation 17), both SARU and the Springbok players and management would have faced much more serious sanctions, including a more severe fine in the case of SARU and the suspension of the Springbok players and management from the Rugby World Cup 2011 (such sanction to have been suspended in the absence of further acts of Misconduct before then).

“The Independent Committee ended its judgment with a clear statement that it believes its decision will deter ‘all rugby players from adopting such an unwise and ill considered way to make their feelings clear to the IRB, or the general rugby watching public’.

“The IRB had sought significant sanctions in this case which was unique in Rugby terms, dealing collectively with a Union, its national representative team and senior management who acted in unison without regard for the best interests of the Game.

“Whilst welcoming the guilty verdicts, the IRB is extremely disappointed at the level of sanctions imposed against the South African Rugby Union and its players in light of the clear findings that they have brought the Game of Rugby into disrepute and acted in a manner which is prejudicial to the best interests of the IRB and the Game of Rugby.

“The IRB is giving urgent and serious consideration to the decision of the Independent Committee and the further options available to it, which include whether or not to bring an appeal against the level of sanctions imposed by the Committee. This ruling will be taken into consideration along with the recent Burger and Parisse eye-gouging cases, as part of the IRB’s ongoing review of Regulation 17.

“The IRB works tirelessly with all 116 Member Unions and key stakeholders to ensure the safety of players and the reputation of the Game is protected.

“The IRB will be making no further comment on this case while it considers its options.”