THE sanctimonious utterings of John Beattie and his views on Jason Leonard's thuggery, border on the breathtaking.

In January, 1995, I listened to the BBC Radio Scotland coverage of the Scotland v Canada match. I was taken aback by John Beattie's comments about Canada's alleged offside offences and his vehement assertions the Scots were too gentlemanly.

According to him, they should have taken the law into their own hands, thus ensuing that with a bit of illegality such Canadian transgressions would rapidly cease.

So offensive was the broadcast, I wrote to the BBC pointing out that were such comments made about a football match they would immediately be disowned. I also indicated my equivocal feelings about my 12-year-old son, who seems to have a talent for the game, a game wherein thuggery and illegality are advocated by coaches and observers alike. I got an interim reply from the BBC's sports editor and not a word from John Beattie.

For John Beattie not to take up this theme in relation to the unfortunate Leonard and trundle out sanctimonious statements about the possibility of mothers not wishing their offspring to indulge in such a dangerous sport, is rich to say the least.

I reiterate my comments of over a year ago. If a sport and its commentators advocate illegal practices which can seriously damage the participants, such a sport is not worth playing. We should not be surprised rugby has now degenerated into nothing less than licensed thuggery.

Lyall Robertson,

``Donnachaidh,''

Bogsbank Road,

West Linton.

q I REFER to your article in The Herald of March 4, regarding the Calcutta Cup match. Considering all the recent discussion there has been in the media about using television re-runs of alleged offences committed on football fields, I wonder if the procurator fiscal in Edinburgh (via the police) is considering a prosecution against Jason Leonard?

If not, then I would have to conclude that there are criminal laws that are subjected to one sport (football) and not others.

There are more criminal assaults (i.e. stamping, gouging, biting etc.) in some rugby matches than would take place during a whole season for a football team.

The laws of the land should cover all its people and not distinguish between sporting or social activities, education, or class. Today it is more apparent than ever that throughout British society, from the national government down, there are ``laws for some and laws for others.''

J L Hamilton,

61 Wester Road,

Mount Vernon,

Glasgow.

q JOHN Beattie rightly condemns physical assault in rugby (March 9) and calls for a ``cultural change'' to improve matters. I applaud this, but would take the matter further. Most reasonable people associated with the game recognise it is a contact sport with a physical dimension, but appreciate there is a difference between its normal, acceptable ``rough and tumble'' and what can be described only as mindless thuggery.

Recently, as a supporter of Hillhead/Jordanhill, I watched our scrum half sustain head injuries which required some 11 stitches and thereafter X-rays to confirm there was no fracture to his skull. The incident - raking of the player on the ground - was witnessed by supporters of both sides but unfortunately the referee was unsighted and no action was taken.

While this letter is primarily one of condemnation, it is also one of appeal to all in the game. Incidents like the above are becoming more common but there seems to be a reluctance on behalf of clubs to take action unless there is a citing of the ``guilty'' player. Why?

Failure to inquire, take appropriate action, etc, can result only in falling standards which ultimately diminish all associated with the game.

I am a supporter of mini, school, district and international rugby and have been for many years. I hope that will continue, but it will do so only if all of us connected with the game police it more effectively, otherwise the abyss and anarchy beckon.

Bernie Mitchell,

3, Windyedge Crescent,

Glasgow.

q THE International Board should have appointed a more competent and rugby-wise representative to conduct the hearing into the Wainwright-Leonard incident.

Marcel Martin, apart from running the Rugby World Cup, has never played rugby at senior level. Did he ever play?

This hearing should have been chaired by someone whose experience reflected the concern of the SRU.

Jock Davidson,

Racing club de France,

Waid Academy FPs,

45 Miller Terrace,

St Monans,

Fife.

q I AM amazed that not one of your sports team criticised Michael Dods' performance, not even the knowledgeable Bill McLaren, although he did mention it in his commentary.

The type of 10-man rugby that England play forces penalties on both sides, therefore the opposing team must have an above average kicker to punish this style of play. The France v England game proved this point.

To perform on the world stage you need a confident kicker with good technique, and Dods has neither confidence nor technique. Why play him? As a wing, he lacks the upper body strength required to defend and lacks the lower body strength which enables the world's best wings, and centres, to side-step at speed.

To blame Dods for our loss would be inaccurate. however, if we had kicked our chances it would have lifted the team and kept Scotland in the game.

We must find a consistent kicker before our New Zealand tour and certainly before our next game against England.

R Leitch,

3 Gearholm Road, Ayr.