Right-thinking sports fans (well, ones like me, anyway) instinctively recoil at the sight of footballers manhandling referees and screaming into their faces.

Such aggressive public behaviour quite clearly shows contempt for authority, brings the game into disrepute and sets a horrendous example for the thousands of youngsters who idolise these overpaid egos in boots.

The trickle-down effect of such televised coarseness is to turn some under-12 football matches across the country into foul-mouthed battlegrounds, with parents and players alike thinking it's permissible to holler at the poor man in black, who surely now should receive a tin hat as standard issue.

Rugby supporters like to think their sport is above such disrespect for the ref. Players may disagree with a decision, but know that verbalising their disagreement in a forthright manner will only result in the other side being awarded a penalty.

And then there is the quaint, public school archaism of addressing the referee 'Sir', a tradition that continues today on many senior pitches across the country.

But this respect for the officials who run rugby union was badly undermined on Saturday – and undermined on the world stage by the world champions.

They may not have been dishing out the hairdryer-effect to the ref over a disputed call by the touch judge, but the armbands the South Africans wore against the British Lions symbolised a far greater – and arrogant – insolence.

The 'Justice 4' armbands, which they adorned in protest at the two- week suspension of lock Bakkies Botha for dangerous charging during the second Test, was an unequivocal two fingers up at the International Rugby Board.

It may have been a silent, sartorial statement of dissent, but it was no less potent – or out of order – for that.

Whether or not you believe Botha breached the laws of the game (and I have some sympathy for the Springbok), there is no place in the game for such organised acts of sedition against the rugby authorities.

Channels exist for players to contest the punishments handed out to them by the Rugby Football Union, the iRB and the like. Those channels do not include a co-ordinated, one-to-15 protest in front of the world's media.

It is a slippery slope. What will the next form of on-pitch protest take? Surrounding the ref and eye- balling him? Shoving him gently?

The iRB is right to charge the South Africa Rugby Union with misconduct. I cannot see any possible defence to the allegation that the Springboks' behaviour "demonstrated a clear disregard of the disciplinary process", as the iRB contends.

Nor, surely, will the South Africans be able to plausibly deny that their actions threatened to bring the game into disrepute.

Whatever the content of Bath Rugby's new code of conduct – its statement of so-called Core Behavioural Values – let's hope it prevents players from embarking on the sort of provocative behaviour that rugby fans witnessed from the world champions on Saturday.

It is an immutable law that referees and sports officials will occasionally make decisions that not all parties agree with. But, please, let's prevent rugby union from going down the path of toys-out-of- the-pram, football-style protests.