Disciplinary panels must be disciplined

The penalties handed out to Pihl Dowson and Steve Borthwick were not stringent enough, and are an example of a worrying lenience and inconsistency in English disciplinary procedures, says Andrew Prince.

Does no-one find it strange that ZP players seem to get very lenient bans for blatant foul-play?

The press, especially Stephen Jones, is quick to criticise punishments handed down to Southern Hemisphere players playing in S12 or Tri-Nations as being too lenient, for similar and often lighter offences than seem to be ominously prevalent here.

I can recall a number of 3 week bans and some even heavier ones for punching in the S12. One player was landed with an 8 week for an attempted headbutt.

I am not suggesting that these sentences weren't appropriate but it does beg the quesiton that if an attempted headbutt is worth 8 weeks on the sidelines, what should a punch that sparks a major brawl be punished with?

Seven days is barely a slap on the wrist and the Rugby Football Union (RFU) could be accused of leniency and favouritism in such instances.

Yes, it's up to the International Rugby Board (IRB) to ensure consistency of punishment within all the unions, but the devil's advocate in me wants to point out the close ties between the IRB and RFU, and my expectation is that the IRB is very unlikely to get involved, despite this circus going on outside its front door.

Maybe this is an area for discussion in the 'laws of the game' column. Why do referees seem to be quite happy to enforce the letter of the law at the tackle etc when there may be some argument for leniency or playing advantage, but seem utterly incompetent of applying the laws to foul play?

If you throw a punch, you should be off, period. At the same time, why do just the instigators of brawls get punished (and quite often it is just the initial retaliator that draws sanction, not the instigator or followers therafter) when the video evidence often shows that many players were throwing punches?

Surely video evidence allows a disciplinary panel to identify most, if not all culprits, and all should be punished - this would send out a strong message about tolerance of foul play from the RFU.

One final, small gripe - Dowson owns up to throwing a punch and gets disciplined internally with a 1 week ban - a pittance but at least this was dealt with in a sensible manner by his club.

Borthwick denies ,or at least pleads not guilty to, throwing any punches but is found to have thrown 2 punches, and then he receives the same ban. What is the point of asking him to plead?

Surely he should get a heavier sentence because he did not admit to an offence, which he was then found guilty of, as would happen in a regular court of law?

Dowson may as well have gone to the disciplinary committee and tried his luck with a "not guilty" plea as well - who knows, maybe he would have got off. There seems to be no merit in owning up to an offence and saving everyone time.