Alastair Hignell: IRB's fines for South Africa a laughable punishment

The 'Ineffective Rugby Board' has done it again.

Or rather, not done it. The punishment the International Rugby Board has handed out to the South African Rugby Union for allowing its players to make a public protest during the third Test against the Lions on July 4 is derisory, while the players' fines are laughable.

All of them earn more in a day than the £200 they are each being docked for wearing wristbands demanding 'Justice 4 Bakkies' after the giant lock Bakkies Botha was cited and suspended, for a measly two weeks, for a dangerous tackle that removed Lions prop Adam Jones from the second Test with a dislocated shoulder.

Captain John Smit's win bonus will more than cover the £1,000 he is being required to pay as the suspected ringleader and protest co-ordinator. The Union's coffers won't noticeably lighten with the loss of the £10,000 they are being required to pay for failing to control their players.

If the IRB really believes that the punishments it has handed out will, as they claim in their statement, "deter all rugby players from adopting such unwise and ill-considered ways to make their feelings clear", then the game's governing body is as far removed from reality as many of its fiercest critics always depicted it to be.

If it believes that any national union anywhere in the world will be shocked into standing up to its players by the fear of a £10,000 fine, it is even more misguided than even its most loyal supporters believe.

It's no use the IRB claiming that it was hamstrung by the lawyers.

In Monday's verdict they claimed, for instance, that they were prevented from considering more serious sanctions, which they spelled out as both a more severe fine and suspension from the Rugby World Cup 2011, because of "legal technicalities". They claim that the reason they had to slap wrists rather than hit where it hurts was that those technicalities prevented them even considering a charge of misconduct which, they spell out in the judgment, was precisely the offence they wanted to rule on. They add that they are "extremely disappointed" at the level of sanctions, propose giving "urgent and serious" consideration to the decision and don't rule out the possibility of appealing against it.

A governing body calling into question its own ability to make decisions, how ludicrous is that? Why go to all the trouble of appointing a stellar disciplinary panel – Australian World Cup-winning captain John Eales providing the rugby perspective to leaven the intellectual rigour of New Zealand's Sir John Hansen, and Judge Guillermo Tragant of Argentina – only to limit its terms of reference and express disappointment about its conclusions?

Why take so long to consider what should have been an open and shut case? The players did wear the armbands and the Springbok management did back them. Nobody disputed those facts, and yet it took from July 4 until August 24 for the IRB to arrive at a verdict with which they are so obviously unhappy.

They couldn't argue that there was no precedent. Wales players had displayed a 'Colin Charvis is innocent' T-shirt in a similar situation a decade or so ago. Nor could they claim it was difficult to apportion responsibility and therefore blame and punishment – an excuse that European Rugby Cup officials could justifiably use in reaching judgment on the roles of Tom Williams, Dean Richards and the Harlequins club as a whole in the 'Bloodgate' affair.

The IRB panel was in no doubt that the South African team and management "acted in unison" and should be punished accordingly. As they recommended a suspension, dependent on future good behaviour, as the most extreme sanction they considered – booting the current world champions out of the next World Cup – there seemed no doubt that, like the ERC, the IRB is determined to ensure that unions and employers take responsibility for the actions of their representatives.

Yet it seems to me the IRB is calling for strong leadership without giving it. This was a golden opportunity to act swiftly, decisively and authoritatively. It had an open and shut case to rule on, with no doubt as to who was guilty.

With the sport wallowing in a sea of scandal, controversy and negative publicity, it was in a prime position to emphasise its authority as a governing body and send out a reminder to everyone in the game – and those outside it – of the core values that have for so long underpinned such a great sport. They missed out.