Rugby World Cup 2015: Nigel Yalden - Make the judicial decisions public

Opinion

Early yesterday morning, prior to what was a very busy and high profile day at the Rugby World Cup judiciary, World Rugby put out a press release entitled "Statement of clarification - the independent disciplinary process".

It was part response part attempt at rebuttal to those who have been publically challenging what they believe to be inconsistencies and/or bias at the judiciary during pool play at this Rugby World Cup.

The six carefully worded paragraphs highlighted the experience, diversity and neutrality of the Citing Commissioners and Judicial Officers, the duty of care to protect players on the field via officiating and disciplinary process as well as pointing out World Rugby's 2012 review of Regulation 17 which covers "discipline - foul play" and the subsequent recalibration of the sanctions table.

The final paragraph of the statement began with this:

"World Rugby is satisfied that the fully independent disciplinary process is being fairly and consistently applied across the board at this Rugby World Cup"

... if you do say so yourselves.

It is, of course, their right though to make such statements as it is yours and mine to question them.

So I put it to you World Rugby.

If you truly believe everything your public relations department wrote in the Statement of Clarification, I ask you to prove it by opening the doors.

Allow members of the sports media to attend judicial hearings and report on them.

It doesn't matter how you as an organisation perceive yourself, it's how you are perceived by (apologies for using business chat) your key stakeholders.

And it would appear that a significant portion of fans and media would strongly disagree with the word "consistently" as it relates to judicial matters at this tournament.

I understand and appreciate that the disciplinary process in charged with judging each case on an individual basis and to not make comparisons to other incidents.

But the fans and media do.

We look at Nemani Nadolo getting suspended for one week for a remarkably similar incident that Tom Wood does not get a sanction for and ask "where is the consistency?"

We also see Michael Hooper charging into a ruck, leading with a shoulder that makes contact with Mike Brown's head for which he gets a one week ban and we say "how is that possible?"

We ask how the judicial officer judging the Sean O'Brien citing can say "that there were no aggravating factors".

Yet in the full judicial decision, six of the seven camera angles used in evidence showed Pascal Pape "dragging" or "grabbing" O'Brien.

When asked if he grabbed O'Brien or not Pape said "he didn't recall but denied that he was pulling O'Brien to "my side"".

Reads like aggravating factors; comes across as contradictory.

So let the media in.

Allow us to sit at the back of the room.

Allow us to see the all the footage that is available.

Allow us to hear the words as they are spoken.

Allow us to view the documents as they are presented.

Then report back to the fans and then together, allow us to judge what you believe to be true.

That being "that the fully independent disciplinary process is being fairly and consistently applied across the board at this Rugby World Cup"

Because in order to truly obtain fairness and consistency, there has to be an acceptable level of openness which is not the case at the moment.