Through the years rugby referees were often accused of not taking the proper disciplinary action for incidents that warranted more than a finger wagging, a lecture or a verbal admonition.

There was some truth, too, in the accusations that both referees and administrators too often turned the blind eye to incidents, especially at representative and international levels. For almost 100 years of competition, only two players had ever been sent off in an international.

The first was New Zealander Cyril Brownlie, against England in 1925; the second came 42 years later when Ireland's Kevin Kelleher dismissed another All Black, Colin Meads, against Scotland in 1967.

Meads, having been twice warned, was sent off after he had aimed a kick in the direction of the Scotland scrum-half David Chisholm as Chisholm gathered the ball.

Kelleher had no hesitation in dismissing Meads and was absolutely right to do so. Meads was subsequently given a two-match suspension. That, of course, was then, and this is now, changed times. Now we can use video play backs, cite offenders when transgressions are missed by referees, or use match commissioners for representative matches.

We have touch judge intervention, the sin bin, yellow cards and red cards. We are told by rugby authorities that acts of violence will be severely punished and there is no hiding place, no place in the game at all for persistent acts of violence and dangerous play. There is no doubt that the disciplinary procedures in rugby have been tightened. A concerted attempt has been made in many respects to punish acts of foul play, and not just with a lecture; now it is the yellow card or indeed the red.

I accept that rugby is very much a contact sport and punches will be thrown, but not always with malicious intent. But do we always see the punishment fitting the crime? Do we always see the transgressors treated in the same way after similar offences? Do we always see genuine attempts by officials from clubs and countries to take the necessary action when one of their players is "caught in the act"? Do we hell.

Just as there is a responsibility on referees to act with courage, so the same responsibility lies with club and union officials to do what is right, and not to pay lip service to the code of discipline under which all are supposed to act. That is clearly not happening - in some cases.

I have in mind the situation regarding England and Leicester captain Martin Johnson, a man who puts fists and boots about in a manner which would have made Colin Meads look almost angelic. Johnson was cited by Saracens after Duncan McRea was put out of the game for up to two months after Johnson kneed him in the back and also stamped on him. He also punched Saracens prop Julian White. An English Rugby Union disciplinary committee imposed suspensions on Johnson last week. He was given a week for punching, four weeks for use of his knee and five weeks for stamping. That amounts to 10 weeks - well, not quite, as his suspensions would be concurrent, not consecutive.

Thus his suspension ends the day before England play Wales in the Six Nations Championship. Very convenient indeed. His club, Leicester, issued a statement that can best be described as ill-advised, at worst pathetic. They have castigated Saracens for citing the player and queried the citing procedure. The statement from the chairman of the disciplinary committee was also pathetic. Last night an appeal on Johnson's behalf was held in Coventry. It was unsuccessful, but the whole affair is a striking indictment on the player, his club and the English union.

Now, Johnson's track record is worthy of some examination. The England coach, Clive Woodward, had to suspend him for an international a few seasons back after an appalling challenge on New Zealand scrum-half Justin Marshall. That came after the the All Blacks coach, John Hart, made it clear to Woodward that he must act or they would. Then we had the stamp on Scotland's John Leslie in 1998 that incensed the Scots. Twice his England team has had tries disallowed, against Wales and Argentina, because he punched opponents. What about his activity against Ireland a few seasons back? Some track record for Leicester to defend. A wonderful example to the youth from a man who is captain of England, his club and captained the 1997 Lions.

Now let us examine another case of stamping and the suspension imposed on Peter Clohessy. In 199394 Clohessy was suspended for 10 weeks after being found guilty of stamping on St Mary's forward Steve Jameson. The circumstances surrounding that citing and suspension were, to say the least, controversial. In fact so controversial that the citing procedure was subsequently changed. That same season Clohessy was kicked three times in the head playing against France in Paris, and had to have stitches inserted in three different wounds. He had to be replaced; no disciplinary action was taken against any French forward.

Two years later, Clohessy was found guilty of stamping on the French forward Olivier Roumat. While Roumat did not require treatment, there was no doubt but that Clohessy was guilty of the offence. What was his suspension? - 26 playing weeks. Contrast that with what we have seen over the last few weeks in the case of Johnson. It is not alone Johnson who stands indicted but his club, the English Rugby Union and, by extension, the game of rugby football.