Rugby Union

2° London Hi 4°C / Lo -2°C

James Lawton: Institutional deceit can destroy game

Schalk Burger only received an eight-week ban for eye-gouging

GETTY IMAGES

Schalk Burger only received an eight-week ban for eye-gouging

There always had to be the fear that English rugby would make a poor job of handling the arrival of the professional game. All the years of denial that it was reasonable for an outstanding sportsman of modest means to put himself up for hire brought an inevitable backlash – and a frenzy to grab some of the new action.

But then who could have imagined that they could have made quite such a mess of it?

Well, we know now. Bloodgate has luridly filled in all of the grey areas. That and the descent into such barbarity and cynicism that the coach of the reigning world champions South Africa can escape unscathed from his claims of eye-gouging, which is to say threatening the eyesight of an opponent is part of a man's game.

But then for the extent of the moral crisis for the time being we need to go no further than the shame of Harlequins and the inescapable conclusion that Bloodgate, which is horrendous enough in itself, is only part of a much wider culture of institutionalised deceit. One thing it tells us with depressing predictability is that there is no honour among the new breed of cheats, the most representative of whom is now surely the Harlequins wing Tom Williams. For singing like the proverbial canary to this week's investigation into Bloodgate he has managed to reduce his ban from a year to a mere four months. This we are told will limit the damage to his career – as if there is any limit to the questions he has drawn against himself in an episode which, crowned by his self-satisfied wink, makes a parody of sport.

No doubt his success in mitigation, such as it is, will be seen as some kind of triumph by the players association, whose chief Damien Hopley, declared that the original sentence was "disproportionate".

Disproportionate to what? It says a lot about the moral vacuum in which a once proud game now operates that its nearest point of reference was the eight-week ban handed to the South African flanker Schalk Burger for eye-gouging.

Fake blood. Eye-gouging. Systematic cheating. Which right-minded parents would want their son to get within a mile of such a sport in its current form and with it's utterly dysfunctional moral compass?

Certainly there can be no tears for the victims of Williams' decision to come, for want of a better term, clean. The admission of Harlequins' director of rugby and the former icon of the England team, Dean Richards that apart from Bloodgate he was involved in four other attempts to cover up cheating episodes is a withering blow to the image of the game.

It rips down so many of the old certainties enjoyed by the faithful at Twickenham.

Harlequins after all are not some bunch of brash new boys scenting profit on the rugby block. They are supposed to be at the heart of English rugby tradition. Right now you can only say, some heart, some tradition.

Three weeks ago we were asked to celebrate the success of the England campaign to land the 2015 World Cup. We were told, by the fine former England centre Will Greenwood, that it was a wonderful chance to advance the values of the world game.

But what values? What is rugby, especially English rugby at this point, to say about those values? Only, that for the present they do not exist. They have been swept aside in a grotesque attempt to gain an edge, any kind of edge by any kind of means. The rest has been a series of lies.

England's World Cup is six years away. It will take all of that to cleanse the game. It is not something that can be done piecemeal. The requirement is an extremely powerful hose.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

One of Lawton's targets
[info]russgc wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 07:37 am (UTC)
It has been evident for some time that rugby has joined Eriksson, Beckham, and other targets of James Lawton's character-assassin campaigns. Goodness knows what humiliations the young Lawton must have suffered on the school rugby fields to warrant such hatred - or maybe some high profile rugby player failed to treat him with the respect his self-importance demanded.
Whatever his personal reasons, Lawton can't be allowed to get away with trying to smear the whole of a fine sport using the actions of a very few professionals in the game.
To characterise rugby as being a game without values, without honour, and to demand sanctimoniously "what right-minded parents would take their son within a mile of such a sport?" is wilfully to deny the realities of grassroots rugby - the hundreds of amateur and semi-professional clubs that make up the overwhelming majority of what is and has always been overwhelmingly a sport for players, whose spectators are almost all ex-players.
Grassroots rugby is what it has always been - a sport where honesty rules. There is no room for the boastful, the show pony, the back-stabber in a confrontational sport where no-one can hide behind attitudes, where cowardice, laziness and selfishness are clear for all to see, and where players need to put their bodies on the line in support of one another. Or rather, there IS room for such bullsh*tters because rugby is largely open-armed and inclusive, but they are seen for what they are, and tend to have the p** taken out of them.
Right from the start at minis level, rugby players are coached to be honest with themselves and their colleagues, to be modest in victory and brave in defeat. And unlike many high-profile team sports, the duffers aren't left mouldering on the sidelines, they are seen as part of the team - just as the talented are not treated as superstars. Referees are not sworn at, touchline supporters of younger teams aren't allowed to scream abuse or encourage violence. In short, young rugby players are coached to be self-disciplined, self-reliant, and good team players too.
Maybe Lawton and his ilke should for once drag themselves away from the free booze and glad-hands of their high-flying lifestyle, and slum it at any one of the country's non-professional rugby clubs. Despite his obvious dislike of the game he'd be made welcome and treated with respect (though his blow-hard windbaggery might attract some comment), and it would be valuable reality check.
We'd certainly make him welcome at Hastings & Bexhill in sunny Sussex - buy him a beer and explain the sport to him - because like most decent rugby clubs we're getting p**d off with this wholesale misrepresentation of our sport.
RussC
Re: One of Lawton's targets
[info]tibleydoc wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 08:46 am (UTC)
You paint such a romantic version of Rugby, it seems wholly unreconisable from the sport responsible for the horror stories players would regale me with when at school; descriptions of antics in the scrum would often leave me feeling sick to the stomach. I can't say university did much to endear me to rugby players either, as new recruits generally found themselves having to participate in increasingly bizarre, homoerotic forfeits, dished out by the senior members in the first few weeks. I distinctly remember one such incident in the union bar where a first year student was made to crawl around on the end of a leash, dressed in only his underwear and tonnes of poorly applied make-up. As he was led outside the other members of the team poured beer all over him, before one unzipped his flies and made ready to urinate. Despite the howls of encouragement from the majority, a slightly more sober and sympathetic member of the team finally intervened to prevent it.

I have no doubt there are many perfectly reasonable people playing rugby, both at grass-roots level and among the professionals, but RussC, your piece is as floweringly romantic as Mr Lawton's is unreasonably condemning.
Re: One of Lawton's targets
[info]russgc wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 09:26 am (UTC)
I'm not pretending it isn't a rough sport - that's what attracts most players, the largely-controlled physical confrontation on the pitch, the respect and good humour off it. As for the post-match 'games', well there's some of that in all team sports and a lot of it at every level at university and some of it is pretty unsophisticated - but you'll find an increasing number of amateur players these days who drink only after games if at all, and whose prime motivation is getting fit and improving their skills. That's not 'romantic' that's observation.
Re: One of Lawton's targets
[info]windytesting wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 02:06 pm (UTC)
We can console ourselves with the fact that Lawton and his ilk will be back to talking about wendyballers broken fingernails and hairstyles by tomorrow.
Re: One of Lawton's targets
[info]hertzcat wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 03:33 pm (UTC)
At least rugby has not descended to the level where Police and courts have to get involved, as has been the case in football for many years. Quin are being roundly condemned and rightly so, but their actions have not been such as to require fraud investigations, unlike Messrs Venables, Graham, Grobbelaar amongst others. This is before one mentions the racist beatings and assault charges.

All rugby fans are sickened and dismayed by recent events - but football fans and journalists would be wise to refrain from throwing stones, given the nature of the glass house in which they dwell.

SW, Boston, MA
Wendyball Journalists
[info]windytesting wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 08:50 am (UTC)
Seeking to deflect attention from their appallingly corrupt sport are loving the last few days. Soon another football cheat will throw himself to the ground in the box and half will cheer and half will shake their heads at real institutionalised cheating.
Re: Wendyball Journalists
[info]tibleydoc wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 09:57 am (UTC)
'Rough' is one thing, fingers where the sun don't shine, eye gouging, yanking of testicles, regular brawls...are you willing to defend all of these actions illegal actions, purely designed to cause pain and humiliation to other people? Being part of and around a great variety of sports people and teams, I never met any group that could drink and degenerate quite as far as the Rugby players. Whilst I have no reason to disbelieve what you say about the increasing number of amateurs curbing these habits, I still think you view the sport as any insider in any sport probably would: through rose-tinted spectacles.

Re: Wendyball Journalists
[info]highsideuk wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 11:42 am (UTC)
University rugby teams are not representative of grass-roots rugby. You want ritual humiliation, you want to try to join an American high school soc! That's just adolescent idiocy.

Eye-gouging is treated specially because blindness is unthinkable. Although in fact, given that we are told gouging is endemic, especially in France, and given that I have never heard of a permanent injury resulting, maybe this is an over-reaction?
As for yanking of testicles and whatnot... well, wear a box and rely on the ref to see it and send them off. It's not going to kill you. It's just not a big deal. I'm about to put my shoulder into your ribs at a flat out run. Neither of us will be thinking about our goolies, and whether or not they have been yanked is not going to affect the outcome of the explosive contest that is about to ensue.
Re: Wendyball Journalists
[info]windytesting wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 11:46 am (UTC)
I doubt you will find any rugby fan condoning gouging or any other illegal play. They do however realise that it is a rough sport and in certain positions is dependant on you physically dominating an opponent - too many people do not understand this, especially those used to players throwing themselves to the ground after zero contact.

Whilst you might indeed have seen drunk rugby players and fans - have you seen any who start riots in city centres as a matter of course? Or have to be segregated in stadiums, or force the police to deploy hundreds and hundreds of their officers to keep opposing fans apart?
Re: Wendyball Journalists
[info]tibleydoc wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 05:38 pm (UTC)
I hardly condone that kind of behaviour by anyone, and I'm sure James Lawton does not, although I wouldn't want to speak on his behalf. In case you are not aware, there have been many columns condemning diving and cheating and the seedy side of football in this newspaper, so I fail to see the point you're trying to make. Yes there is cheating in football and rugby, but it does not diminish the fact you all seem a little blaise about it in rugby, put completely disgusted by it in football.

Re: Wendyball Journalists
[info]windytesting wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 08:07 pm (UTC)
Many columns? Really?

Like most involved in the sport they are hypocrites, they wring their hands when perfidious foreigners dive but justify it when it's their own players.

Football is rotten to its core and the recent spate of hacks launching attacks on rugby is just another example of that.

Rugby has many decent values still at its core - but clearly professionalism has eroded a few - but the simple fact is the game has a basic physical honesty that Football lost 40yrs and it's much the better for it. The fact that opposing fans can sit with each other and have a pint during the match with feeling some horrible compulsion to stab each other is something wendyball could only ever dream of.
Re: Wendyball Journalists
[info]tibleydoc wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 09:08 pm (UTC)
I don't think I said anything at all about the state of football. I abhorre many of the modern day tactics employed by players; I certainly would not say in their defence that it is part of the game, and something that many people do not understand, as you seemed to confess of rugby, albeit in a very diplomatic way.

I doubt you would find any football correspondent in this newspaper roundly praising anyone who dived or cheated, and I can't recall reading anything like that for the few years I've followed these pages. I await to be enlightened otherwise.

As for the fans, I can't disagree; the behaviour of certain hooligans still pervades football - although I would suggest that this has improved substantially over the last 20 years. There is an issue of popularity at stake here too. I'm sure if rugby became as popular as football is in this country, I dare say we would see the same kind of disgusting behaviour. Lest us not forget that there are millions of people who follow football without the slightest urge to stab anyone, even if they happen to follow a different team.
Re: Wendyball Journalists
[info]72trailsofsmoke wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 09:02 am (UTC)
c'mon give us a chance! For years us wendyball fans have had to listen to pompous rugby-types pontificating about cheating footballers. Now we learn that rugby players are just as bad, if not worse. I can think of lots of diving footballers, but I don't think any of them have resorted to using special effects! I've always hated the apparent acceptance of a level of thuggery and macho bs in rugby that would be seen as totally beyond the pale in footie under the umbrella of 'its a man's game' (except of course when it's played by women - I'm guessing that women's rugby, like women's soccer, is entirely free of all this rubbish). Punching, stamping, gouging etc – its not the kind of manliness I want to teach to my kids that’s for sure. I look forward to using the newly-learned phrases 'Bloodgate' and 'uncontested scrum' in the near future.
Stop flogging a dead horse!
[info]djshort wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 05:46 pm (UTC)
As an international supporter of rugby, I find the recent string of articles from English sports journalists on rugby union 'doom-and-gloom' a pathetic joke. World rugby is NOT in a crisis. English rugby may be. Firstly, lets deal with Schalk Burger. His incident occurred on the field in the heat of the moment and yes - it was shocking and South African supporters as a whole are glad that he is no longer the choice flank for the Boks (never mind that he had a reputation as a tough but clean player before). As a Western Province supporter, I expect him to be heckled when he returns to play for his province.Regarding the Bok coach, he has appeared in a SARU disciplinary and been told to shut up (much to SA supporters relief). Regarding SA rugby as a whole, the last 3 years, international referees say that the Boks play it clean and within the rules: north and south hemisphere referees have on average penalized SA 26% less than their opposition. Yes, SA play it hard - but do it by the book (as I said, not my opinion but world refs). Regarding the Bath rugby club affair, it is an off-the-field incident and should have been dealt with as a fraud case (which it is). It is to their and English rugby's shame that this crime was covered up - but it has nothing to do with the state of world rugby. So stop trying to draw a parallel that does not exist! We are fed up with journalists trying to dilute or shift attention from an English problem by bringing a single on-the-field incident into their own sordid affair. I'm sorry to say that it brings their judgment into question.

Free gym pass

Get fit for summer with Fitness First gyms in London

Download a free gym pass from Fitness First today