If the IRB were as quick to react to the real problems plaguing rugby as they were to the Springboks' white arm-band protest, the game would be in a far better state than it currently finds itself, says iafrica.com's Rob Peters.

The disciplinary process is an inconsistent mess ? there are, at most, eight competitive teams across the globe ? and the laws are confusing. The IRB has failed to act on any of the above, yet they have managed to come down hard and fast on the Boks for their protest action during the Lions series.

Is it just me, or do the IRB only act when they are directly called out on something?

According to the IRB's findings, the actions of the Boks, their management and Saru "brought the game into disrepute, criticised the judicial process and was misconduct." They were all duly fined and warned of possible further action.

Now, I have said before that the protest against Bakkies Botha's ban was a bit over the top ? and ultimately had no effect other than to irk the IRB ? but the reaction from the IRB has been ridiculous.

I could live with a fine. But the fact that the IRB are looking to take further action against Saru and the Boks, including the threat of being banned from the 2011 World Cup, is unbelievably heavy-handed and smacks of totalitarianism from the sport's governing body.

"Question us, and we will make sure you never do it again."

Don't question the lawmakers

The laws of the IRB have always been in favour of the lawmakers. Players and coaches are not allowed to criticise match officials ? just ask Eddie Jones ? or stand the risk of 'bringing the game into disrepute', while the lawmakers are free to criticise the performance of certain teams ? just ask Paul Honiss his thoughts on the Springboks when they played Ireland in 2004 ? without fear of censure.

Match officials are seldom brought to task after poor performances either, so they are pretty much given a free ride in that respect as well.

The Boks were certainly justified in their reaction to the ban handed down to Botha, but rather than the IRB actually considering the merit of the team's argument, they instead focused on how John Smit and his team-mates reacted to it, thus ensuring the inconsistency in disciplinary hearings is never even considered, let alone rectified.

But remember, 'criticise the judicial process' and you are bringing the game into disrepute. So what exactly are teams supposed to do if they are unhappy with the result of a call in a game or the findings of a disciplinary hearing?

Well, in regard to the DC findings, they can appeal, which the Boks did. But what if the appeal falls through? Well, it appears you have to just suck it up then?

It's ironic, of course, that the same day Saru stood before the IRB DC to answer for the protest, Wallaby flyhalf Matt Giteau escaped any form of censure over a blatant shoulder charge on Springbok scrumhalf Fourie du Preez. Again, it highlighted the inconsistency of the disciplinary process in rugby, and again the IRB did absolutely nothing to address the problem ? they were too busy hauling Saru over the coals for criticising a judicial process that is so clearly in need of a change.

A messy system

The IRB's disciplinary process has been a mess for years. Harsh penalties have been handed down for minimal infringements, while serious acts of foul play have often gone without any punishment.

Consider that John Smit copped a six-week ban for handing off with an elbow against France in 2005, yet Brad Thorn was given just one week for a spear tackle (off the ball) on the Bok skipper last year. Bakkies Botha gets two weeks for legally cleaning out a player at the ruck, but Lions prop Andrew Sheridan doesn't even get cited for punching Bok lock Andries Bekker in the groin!

The list goes on and on? and the Giteau farce is merely the latest.

The fact that the world's number one team even saw the need to protest and had the backing of their opponents at the time ? this despite the IRB claiming the Boks showed the Lions disrespect through their actions ? should be what is concerning the IRB.

So desperate were the Boks to take a stand, and so inefficient are the channels to do so, that they felt forced to stage a protest after all other routes became closed to them. Surely such drastic action should make the IRB sit up and take notice? Surely the game's governing body must realise something is wrong with the structures they have put in place?

Apparently not...

In my opinion, the only people bringing the game into disrepute are the very people responsible for running it.