Sharia law for UK? Why not Fifa, IRB and ICC rules for SA?

There is an unholy uproar in the United Kingdom right now regarding comments made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. Dr Williams unleashed hell on earth by daring to suggest that parts of Sharia or Islamic Law be adopted into Britain.

For my part I believe that if a community does express a desire that portions of their law be utilised, obviously not at the expense of the prevailing law of that country, then there should not be a problem. Williams was suggesting, for example, laws relating to marriage may be dealt with in terms of Sharia Law where the couples are Muslims. In South Africa Jewish couples need to be divorced in terms of South African law as well as Jewish Law. We don’t see this as a problem nor do our Muslim communities as far as I am aware.

Whichever way you read it, I don’t believe it warrants the type of attacks and abuse that the Archbishop is receiving. If you have an opinion express it — play the ball not the man.

Which brings me to today’s topic — If British Muslims can use Sharia Law, why not use Fifa or IRB rules to govern sports-mad South Africans? I figured that we’ve had enough doom and gloom to last us a lifetime so why not just lighten things up for a change?

This would mean that instead of simply being bound by prevailing South African law you, this week only, could choose to be judged and sentenced according to the rules and regulations governing the sporting body of your choice.

When I say sporting body please refrain from writing in to tell us that you would like to be whipped by Maria Sharapova — pleasant as that thought may seem … okay write in and tell us that but also include bits about the real topic.

As our first example let us use a fictitious name, say Joseph Bloggs (any similarities with a living editor are purely coincidental — have you seen his car? Call that living?) who is up on a charge of fraud.

Instead of being stuck with : “The unlawful and intentional misrepresentation yaddah yaddah yaddah”, he could elect to be bound by the IRB rules and regulations regarding conduct.

In this case we would have to use Law 26, foul play.

Unfair play — repeated infringements:
(2) It is illegal for any player: (a) deliberately to play unfairly or wilfully infringe any law of the game, (b) wilfully to waste time, (c) wilfully to knock or throw the ball from the playing area into touch, touch-in-goal or over the dead-ball line, (d) to infringe repeatedly any law of the game.

So instead of a magistrate deciding on whether Bloggs had been fraudulent he would rather judge him on fairness or wasting time.

Our second fictitious example being Ndumiso Ngcobo (it’s common like Joe Bloggs), who is being charged with drunken driving. Here, instead of being bored to death by local ordinances and waffle from metro cops when they come and give evidence, Ndumi could request that his case be decided by Fifa regulations.

Here a magistrate would have regard to Fifa’s rules on offside :

Law 11 — Offside
Offside Position: It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position. A player is in an offside position if: he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent. A player is not in an offside position if he is in his own half of the field of play or he is level with the second last opponent or he is level with the last two opponents.

Offence: A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by: interfering with play or interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage by being in that position.

Of course, in Ngcobo’s case, he would have been interfering with the metros and vloeking every cop at the scene. Then he would have tried his best Judge Motata routine : “I thwear I did not have thexual relations with thath woman” — which is why they arrested him.

No question he’ll be adjudged offside and sent off — to a seminar for editors where he’ll be bored to death — no escaping the death penalty here.

Finally, a fictitious name nobody could assume is real, Vincent Maher (would you call your kid Vincent?). Vince is up on a charge of receiving stolen property and elects to be tried in accordance with the ICC rules and regulations.

The closest we could come is the rule on being :

Law 39: Stumped
1. Out Stumped (a) The striker is out stumped if (i) he is out of his ground and (ii) he is receiving a ball which is not a no ball and (iii) he is not attempting a run and (iv) his wicket is put down by the wicket-keeper without the intervention of another member of the fielding side. Note Law 40.3 (Position of wicket-keeper). (b) The striker is out stumped if all the conditions of (a) above are satisfied, even though a decision of run out would be justified.

Let’s be kind — Vince Maher is stumped at the best of times and his sentence must be dealt with in accordance with the Mental Health Act. Of course, if he ever tries to escape from a facility he’ll be put out of his misery with a stump — thrown by a warder.

With the emphasis on fair play and sportsmanship, who could fail to take advantage of these alternatives to South African law?