KEY POINTS:
Players these days get away with the rugby equivalent of murder by fouling other players. Why? Because they know they are very unlikely to wear a punch.
I think Clint Newland has been hard done by for clouting All Black prop Neemia Tialata. He got 10 weeks for an offence that generally carries a penalty of between two to eight weeks. So why the extra?
I am not condoning what Newlands did, nor am I advocating that punching be allowed in rugby games to right wrongs. But I am saying that the drive to clean up the game has damaged it, and people like Newland get dealt with more harshly than need be.
Tialata was hit because he was apparently interfering with the Hawke's Bay jumper in the lineout. In the past, players who interfered in that way knew that, at some stage, they'd be getting a big punch in the ear if they kept infringing.
It was the same with players who lay on the ball to kill it in the rucks. If you ever did it, you knew that when you got up you'd be wearing a tattoo on your back from the sprigs of those rucking you off the ball. Not many players had the balls to do it.
We all know now what a blight the tackled ball area is on the game of rugby. People kill the ball because they know they won't get rucked and the whole problem area is full of penalties.
It's also true of professional fouls - players do it because they know they can get away with not being seen by the referee and because they know that, with cameras everywhere, the opponents are not liable to dish out summary justice.
So, what we have is an attempt to clean the game up, violence-wise, actually lessening the spectacle of the game.
Then we have the new system where Bruce Squire, QC, sits as head of the judicial committee. I'm sorry, but I preferred the days when the system was manned more by former players who saw things from a playing point of view.
I am not talking about leniency or letting people off if they have done something that needs punishment.
But I think the rugby judicial system has become more vindictive under a QC. Let me ask this: why did Newland cop 10 weeks? On TV news recently, we saw the Auckland Grammar vs Kings College First XV clash descend into an all-out brawl.
There were punches thrown but none seemed to connect. But the intent was the same. Everyone - whether it was Newland or those First XV players who threw a punch - intended it to land. But Newland got 10 weeks, everyone else... nothing.
Was he being punished for connecting? Or for hitting an All Black? Or because the ref and two touchies missed it? Or because of the fuss that went on afterwards?
They say, in the current judicial system, that your past record counts for nothing. Bull. For three days until the judicial hearing, the punch was on TV news, radio talkback, newspaper, you name it.
There is no way that was a 'fair trial' under current law.
The system has to be more consistent, more even-handed and less politically motivated. Those who are taking advantage of the anti-violence measures need to be dealt with - then there is no need for anyone to punch anybody else.
And we need some consistency in our 'sentencing'. Fair enough if Newland got two-eight weeks. But 10 weeks?
That seems wrong to me.
